elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On arrival the First Officer and I were scheduled to deadhead on a flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1. At departure time; while seated in our seats on we were approached by the boarding agent and advised to remove all our personal belongings and proceed off the flight and advised by the working First Officer to call scheduling. The working pilots received an ACARS notice for us to call scheduling.After deplaning and calling scheduling; the crew tracker advised the First Officer and I that we were to operate a flight from ZZZ to ZZZ2. The First Officer and I proceeded to the new departure gate and flew the flight to ZZZ2 after the ongoing maintenance delay on the aircraft was resolved. Later; on the following day; the First Officer and I were advised that our FDP (Flight Duty Period) ended after landing in ZZZ and that because we did not receive the ten hours minimum rest from the previous arrival to the ZZZ2 departure we were both in violation of FAR 117.3 crew rest rules. I did not know about the FDP ending after the live leg and PRIOR to the deadhead. Crew trackers do not understand how to apply FAR Part 117 regulations. The duress placed upon the First Officer and I to deplane [the deadhead flight] seconds prior to door closer placing me in a haste to operate the flight to ZZZ2.I suggest employing crew trackers that know what they're doing and ensure they follow policies; procedures; and regulations. Hopefully a brief narrative of this event will be provided so that other pilots will be informed of the live leg to deadhead requirements when being rescheduled.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a crew scheduling error that had them exceed their duty period.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passing FL 190 we got a Bleed Duct Warning message. Captain transferred radio communications to me and we accomplished the QRH procedures. We [advised] ZZZ Center and began an immediate descent to 10;000 and started a turn back towards ZZZ. Upon completion of QRH we were unpressurized and were cleared for the return to ZZZ. We accomplished all checklists and landed at ZZZ without further incident.Due to the bleed air leak the QRH has us depressurize the aircraft. Cabin alt 8500.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported a bleed duct warning message.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GUM.Airport, GU
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZUA
ATC / advisory: Center ZUA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was flying VFR counter clockwise around the island. He was a student pilot with no instructor on board and spoke very bad english. Initially we coordinated a transition with Anderson Military base. When F15's started recovering from their exercise we coordinated a handoff to the tower so they could separate Aircraft X from their traffic. A few minutes later Anderson Tower called us complaining about the english of the pilot; and coordinated a climb out of the airspace and a heading to maintain clear of an active TFR that is very hazardous to flight. When he came onto our frequency the radar controller started turning him wider around the TFR in order to keep him safe. The pilot sounded confused and started turning the wrong direction into the hazardous TFR. At the same time military aircraft were stepping over the communications while talking on another frequency. When the pilot got within 1.5 miles of the TFR; I called the controlling agency of the TFR and 'Stopped Buzzer'. Even after the stopped buzzer the pilot did not read the turns correctly causing more confusion. When the brasher report was issued the pilot did not understand and gave us his phone number instead of copying ours. Two things should be learned from this incident. 1. The position of the Hazardous TFR on the Northeast side of the island is a dangerous location conflicting with many potential flights per-day; IFR and VFR flights. 2. The english proficiency test for foreign pilots needs to be stricter. The pilot had no idea what we were saying to him and could not take any control instructions.




Synopsis: ZUA controller describes a problem with a student pilot who was not proficient enough in English to follow instructions.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower RDU
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had just finished deicing and were taxiing for departure. There was one controller working all frequencies. As we were taxiing down Echo Taxiway toward [Runway] 5L for departure; we were cleared to depart and to turn left to heading 035. The First Officer acknowledged the clearance. We did the checklist and continued toward the runway. We were about halfway down Echo when we were cleared for departure.The controller seemed very busy with all the other activity on Ground and Tower. Controller was even trying to find a deice frequency for an aircraft that needed to deice. As we approached [Runway] 5L for departure; I looked to my left to clear final. That's when I noticed [another] aircraft that seemed to be very close to landing. The First Officer said that it was at 400 feet. I stopped the aircraft as we crossed the hold short line. The First Officer called Tower and informed them of the traffic on final and that we had stopped. Controller then sent the aircraft around. As the aircraft went around and all was clear; we were cleared for takeoff again. We departed and continued.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being cleared for takeoff while on a taxiway; turned onto runway and while turning; observed an aircraft on final.  Pilot advised Local Controller; who sent aircraft on final around.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground RNO
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Taxiing out for the runway for departure; at the junction of B and A taxiways at RNO we hit a patch of black ice; did an involuntary; slow 360 without leaving the pavement; and proceeded to slow taxi to the departure runway; after the 360; the runway boasted good braking action; our passengers were amused; and unafraid. Ground control informed us that a sand truck would be dispatched to the site of our spin out; and we departed without further delay. Actually the only thing I can say is be careful out there; especially in the mountain airports; in the wintertime. Make that all airports in the winter time.




Synopsis: Flight crew lost control of the aircraft when they encountered black ice on the taxiway. They regained control and continued with extreme caution.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The aircraft had sat for 30 days at a small airport. The pilot arrived and departed with the intent to fly to [an airport several states away]. Whether the aircrafts' protective covers were installed has not been determined. After 30 minutes of flight; the low 'Oil Pressure' light illuminated. The pilot made a precautionary landing near a farm house. Upon opening the engine cowl; oil was everywhere. The engine had lost 4 quarts in the short flight. Most of the oil residue was around the Bleed Valve opening. A Mechanic was dispatched and found the engine case breather tube was blocked. This had caused the engine interior to become pressurized and vent the oil out the labyrinth seals. The tube was cleaned and reinstalled. A maintenance run was performed and the aircraft was put back in service for the continuation of the flight. The aircraft is operated on a Part 135 certificate. According to FAR PT 135.415 Par. (A)16. This event should be reported to the PT 135 Certificate Administrator (FSDO). This was not done. This has happened on two prior operations by this company where aircraft have made precautionary landings and declared an inflight emergency for priority landings. Management is aware of this and the procedure is contained in the company's Emergency Procedures Manual. Suggestions: company wide training on the correct procedures to follow in an event. Failure to follow published procedures.




Synopsis: Mechanic reports being dispatched being sent to repair a helicopter that landed in a field due to loss of oil quantity and pressure. The Mechanic found the engine case breather tube blocked causing engine oil to vent through the labyrinth seals.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF SEZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: My aircraft was on a straight in approach; to Runway 21; as announced on 123.0 radio. There was no 'overfly' of the airport; however local announcements were made by me at 10; 5; and 3 mile final to the active runway. Upon landing on 'numbers;' and rolling out by midfield; a small plane began a take off roll from Runway 3 and continued its departure flying over us at approximately 500 FT. Upon parking; I talked to an airport person that said that they had not heard any of my radio calls. I told them that possibly I may have been on wrong frequency; but not sure. If so; then departing plane was unaware of my approach and landing by radio communications. We need to perhaps instill a written recommendation that although radio contact is not necessary at these types of airports that should no reply be present when using a radio; then a fly over of the airport must be necessary to facilitate safety at these uncontrolled airports. This particular airport and vicinity does not recommend flyovers at less than 6;500 FT due to wildlife and noise restrictions. That was a factor as to my decision to fly a straight in approach. This will not happen again! Both pilots were at fault here; as I did not confirm through radio communications any activity that was present at the airport; and perhaps the other pilot did not see me exiting the runway midfield when he began his takeoff roll.




Synopsis: After landing on CTAF SEZ Runway 21; a pilot noted an aircraft departed on Runway 3 then overfly his aircraft by about 500 FT. The pilot acknowledged his pre-landing reports may have been on the incorrect frequency but also noted the opposing pilot should have seen his aircraft.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On taxi in during night time raining operations I had to deconflict our aircraft from two other aircraft autonomously without ATC ground instruction. Taxiing in on K with clear unrestricted instructions to taxi to our gate via A9; A. When approaching taxiway B on K I saw an Airbus taxiing at high speed approaching our common intersection from the left. I chose to stop my aircraft in the interest of safety because they did not appear as if they were going to give way; and did not.I was now in question of my taxi clearance due to the collision avoidance I had to take. Also; this being my 5th leg in two days with 5 total such occurrences I feared multiple de-conflicted aircraft now on taxiway B and/or A. I proceeded with extreme caution due to night time rainy conditions and the potential for collision with another aircraft. As I proceeded slowly with the previous clearance the ground controller came on and restated the clearance in a condescending tone and that I was holding up traffic. But I saw an aircraft under tow on B as I approached A9; they were turning onto A7 and fearing that my clearance would again cause a conflict with that aircraft under tow assuming his turn was going to be right on A and into the south port. To avoid turning into that aircraft on A; I stopped my aircraft on A9 again in the interest of safety. Indeed the tow was turning into us onto A and into the south port. The ground controller again now in an irritated and condescending tone barked the same clearance again as if we could just squeeze by them with no conflict.We should have never been given the last clearance without give way instructions for the [aircraft] under tow. Had I been taxiing at higher speeds and not given way the conflict would have resulted in either a standoff at A8 on A or worse yet another potential collision. We taxied to the gate without a collision. I called the tower supervisor and discussed the incident. The tower manager called me two days later and said indeed there were two or three aircraft conflicts that were never de-conflicted. Our talk was congenial and professional.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported confusion and conflictions from Ground Controller's clearance to gate.
Date: 201705
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I experienced an issue using Foreflight that I thought I'd share. On a VFR flight I noticed the Foreflight app on my iPad mini froze shortly after turning on my Stratus device. I then attempted to reset the app by canceling the program and restarting. At that time the iPad mini went into a strange factory restore mode and asked for my Apple password in order to restore the iPad mini device. I turned off both the iPad mini and the Stratus. Not having a network connection in the plane; I then took out my iPad Pro from my flight bag and started the Foreflight app. The Foreflight app worked until I turned on the Stratus again. To my surprise the iPad Pro also froze and displayed the same symptoms as the iPad mini. Very odd that both apple devices would have issues. While on the ground with a network connection; I rebooted and provided both Apples with the password. I connected the Stratus to Foreflight and updated the operating system as requested by the software. Everything seems to work now. Very unusual to lose Foreflight on two Apple devices within minutes of each other.Stratus PRX V2 Ipad mini Version 9.3.5 Ipad pro Version 10.2.1




Synopsis: Mooney pilot reported two separate iPad failures while running Foreflight moments after turning on his Stratus device. After landing; the Stratus device had its operating system updated and all devices worked normally.
Date: 202103
Weather elements / visibility: none stated
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During boarding a young man stopped right in front of myself and the Purser and had a motorized board he was carrying. The Purser started asking him questions about it like; What it was; how it works; how do you operate it and does it have a battery in it? The Purser wasn't comfortable with it so she messaged the agent about it and requested a CSR come down and ask him further questions. The Purser then informed the Captain about the board and he too was very concerned about it and he went to get a CSR. The CSR came and the customer came up to the boarding door with the board and they began talking about how he was able to get this far with it on an aircraft. He came from ZZZ to ZZZ1 then onto ZZZ2. The customer said he made several phone calls to TSA and [Air Carrier] about bringing the board and was told he could bring it on the aircraft with a lithium battery. The Captain then informed him that it was a prohibited item onboard the aircraft unless he had proper documentation stating that it was OK; to which he did not. The Captain told him he could not go on this flight with the board and had him retrieve his belongings and his traveling partner and exit the aircraft. The customer was very upset and began cussing and raising his voice so much so that everyone on the aircraft heard him about having to get off the aircraft. I only know the customers were in [seat]; I do not have names.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported refusing to allow a Lithium Ion powered Hover Board in passenger cabin per company Hazmat policy.
Date: 201507
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Park post-arrival
Aircraft component: Cockpit Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As you know; The 737 cockpit door has a door stop / floor striker mounted on the bottom of the door. The door stop mounting system has two screws screwed into the end of the door. These screws can back out and jam the cockpit door in the closed position. This was the case when we tried to leave the cockpit in ZZZ. Luckily we were done for the day; but we had use the emergency exit means and crawl through the door. And the aircraft was unable to fly the next flight because it took too long to fix the door. May I suggest that if there were no way to remove the screws altogether; these screws be 'safetied'. I would remove the screws; reinstall with locktite and a lock washer; and then cover the two screws with aluminum tape. Also there is a groove in the door frame adjacent to these screws when the door is closed. This groove is what the loose screws get caught in. A small cut out in this groove adjacent to the screws would let the door open if one or both screws did back out.An Inflight consequence is apparent.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported the crew was unable to open the cockpit door at flight termination because some screws had come loose at the bottom of the door.