elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I arrived at the airplane to clean it with disinfectant wipes; there were none on the aircraft. I used my own personal stash to clean the flight deck. This has happened two days in a row; at two different stations.  Both times they were aircraft that RONed at the station.  There is zero PPE being provided for the flight deck during operations. I had to use my own personal disinfectant wipes that I carry with me. There should be disinfectant wipes placed in the flight deck every RON.  This should be a go/no go item.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they are not being provided with proper disinfectant wipes and PPE.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll Runway XX; Tower said another pilot reported flames coming out No1 engine or left side. Rejected takeoff; ran all checklists; and shut down engine. Never had any abnormal engine indications. Had them roll the fire trucks and upon inspection all appeared normal. No smoke or abnormals reported by flight attendants. After all checklists complete and contacting Company and Maintenance had fire trucks follow us to our gate. ELB entry followed up with verbal to Maintenance. First Officer and flight attendants did an excellent job!




Synopsis: Captain reported a rejected take off due to a reported engine fire.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A passenger initially would not wear a mask. The flight attendants gave the passenger a few warnings and moved the passenger to the back and the passenger agreed to wear the mask. The flight attendants reported to me that the passenger was compliant and we were good to depart. The following day the flight attendants informed me that the passenger was possibly intoxicated and should have been removed.Cause - Desire by the flight attendant to be lenient and not remove a passenger if not absolutely needed. Too much focus on mask compliance and forgetting about intoxication regulations.Increase communication on cabin discrepancies to increase awareness.


Second narrative: A passenger was non-compliant about wearing their mask during the boarding phase of the flight.  After several warnings and moving the passenger to another section of the aircraft; the flight attendants reported the passenger was wearing their mask and we initiated the flight to ZZZ1.  The following day; the flight attendants made us aware that the passenger was potentially intoxicated.Bring concerns about the mask compliance and communication between the flight attendants and the pilots.  Enhanced communication between the pilots and flight attendants during irregularities within the cabin and passengers.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a possibly intoxicated passenger was non-compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off to me at 6000 ft; IFR but non-radar. The transferring controller advised me that they were not in radio communication with Aircraft X. I called back and had them transmit in the blind for the aircraft to climb to 8000 ft for the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). I started to pick up Aircraft X just as he crossed into the 7000 ft MVA area and could see that the aircraft was climbing out of 6200 ft.




Synopsis: ZDV Center Controller reported receiving a NORDO aircraft that wasn't in radar coverage below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During visual approach to [Runway] 28C ORD at 5;000 ft. MSL vicinity of RZUKO intersection; a drone passed off right-hand side of [the] aircraft approximately 50 ft. below us. Drone was less than 1 meter in length.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a near miss with a UAS occurred while on final approach.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure and during climb out at about FL200 an ECAM fault occurred.WHEEL N/W STRG FAULTBRAKES SYS 2 FAULTThese faults also showed the following INOP SYS on the ECAM:CAT 3 DUALN/W STRGBRK SYS 2These faults had no ECAM actions. The QRH listed a follow up action to the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT. Per the QRH follow up; a computer reset was accomplished. The faults initially cleared and then returned. Several resets were attempted with the same results. I attempted to contact Dispatch but the connection was intermittent and continued to cut out. I contacted Dispatch via a phone patch over VHF and was also patched in with Maintenance Control. Maintenance Control had no additional actions to remedy the situation that were not already accomplished via the QRH. I decided to try one more reset prior to advising ATC due to the inoperative nose wheel steering system. The reset was successful at that time. The flight proceeded per the flight plan.On final approach to [destination]; the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT and BRAKES SYS 2 FAULT faults returned when the landing gear was extended. A go-around was performed and delay vectors requested to reattempt another reset. The reset attempts were not successful. ARFF was requested due to the N/W STRG system being inoperative for rollout after landing. Dispatch was notified via ACARS. A precautionary landing was performed and the aircraft was safely stopped on the runway centerline. ARFF inspected the aircraft and the brakes were found to be within acceptable limits and safe to tow. Operations provided a tug and towed the aircraft to the gate. Maintenance failure to completely fix a fault previously noted in the aircraft maintenance log.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported executing a go-around after receiving wheel and brake faults on final approach.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SBA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y was executing a missed approach when I had cleared Aircraft X. I underestimated the distance and climb out of the missed approach. When I noticed the missed approach would not be 1;000 feet above Aircraft X; I canceled Aircraft X approach clearance; turned him to the south and climbed him to 3;000 feet. I knew the EOVM (Emergency Obstruction Video Map) in that area was 1;900 feet so I felt comfortable turning him to avoid the missed approach. I decided; better to turn away into lower MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) then continue the two aircraft into a greater conflict.I should have allowed more space for arrivals when there is a missed approach in progress. Also get more sleep. I slept for 2 hours last night due to many circumstances beyond my control. Out of fear of reprisal; I did not call in fatigued.




Synopsis: SBA TRACON Controller reported having to turn an aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude to avoid a traffic conflict.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: B757-300
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An E190 departed 18R on a 140 heading for the southeast departure gate. Prior to the E190 crossing the extended center line of 17L; I noticed a departure tag of a B757 off 17L turning to 220 heading for the west departure gate. The reported weather observation for the hour had a broken ceiling of 1;500. The Tower was providing 3 miles visual separation for arrivals from the north. I observed the two targets get within 1/2 mile in the departure climb/turn. I trust the Tower was using visual separation between the 2 aircraft; but because of the weather conditions and their close proximity to each other; I felt it was a safety issue. Withholding a departure clearance for a couple seconds when using crossing departure courses would ensure separation. Coordination with the departure (East and/or West) Controller would alleviate an inquiry of the procedure being used.




Synopsis: F11 Controller described a potential conflict event between successive departure from Runway 18R and Runway 17L; the reporter noting Tower Controllers should insure more separation with successive departures.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing out of gate got taxi clearance for 24L via taxiway C. By taxiway C8 a vehicle (tug with four carts) crossed in front of us at less than 20 yards from left to right. Used heavy braking to avoid him. Notified ground control with description. ATC then sent airport ops vehicle after the tug. Continued taxiing to 24L with no further incident.




Synopsis: Q400 Captain reported having to use heavy braking to avoid a collision with a tug during taxi for takeoff at LAX.
Date: 201807
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Second reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Customer was checking in at our lobby and had to check in his bag. We identified it as a first generation smart bag. While the customer was trying to remove the lithium battery from the bag; it began to smoke and spark from the battery. The bag was eventually moved out to the curb where a fire extinguisher was used on it. The first generation smart bag presents an issue as we frequently see them at the airport used by customers; but the batteries are very difficult to remove and usually only removed from inside of the luggage after accessing the panel with a screwdriver. Sometimes the battery does not easily slide out.


Second narrative: A passenger approached first class check in and was told by one of the CSRs and advised them they had to remove the lithium battery from his first generation smart bag. Within a minute or two of handing a different screwdriver for the passenger to use; [a colleague] approached me and asked me if I could hear a hissing sound. I turned towards first class [line] and realized it was coming from the first class check-in direction. Without notice there was a release of white smoke and black smoke all at once; [it] also released gaseous fumes that could not be outrun by neither myself or [my colleague]. At this point [my colleague] and I started to run towards the counter exit; paused then continued again. On our way out we encountered [another colleague] and alerted her to what had just occurred. We advised [our other colleague] not to re-enter the ticket counter the fumes were overwhelming.


Synopsis: Two air carrier CSRs reported vacating area due to smoke and fumes released from Smart Bag lithium battery.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had an aircraft with MEL 22-2 Autopilot Pitch Trim. Under (O) Procedures; step E; it allows use of autopilot for landing with provisions. This MEL does not require a downgrade of the CAT II/III status; however; in Volume I under APPR/LND/GA; the Autopilot Pitch Trim is required for both Cat II and III. Maybe this could be changed; many other autopilot MEL's also require a downgrade under 22-89; one other note about MEL 22-2. Up in RVSM airspace the possibility of losing 200 feet in a turn on the autopilot is high; especially if distracted by ATC communications; etc. It might be worthwhile to consider an altitude restriction under this MEL. We were being vectored and rerouted; (distraction) during this flight and during a 90 degree heading change at FL320; the autopilot could not maintain altitude. Manual intervention prevented altitude deviation; however not by much. I feel changing the MEL as outlined above would help prevent this malfunction from causing problems for other pilots.




Synopsis: A MD83 Captain questioned whether the aircraft should be permitted into RVSM airspace with the autopilot trim MEL'ed because in a turn the aircraft can potentially not hold altitude; and additionally a discrepancy exists between manuals about CAT II/III operations without the trim functioning.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 5
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flight to ZZZ; thunderstorms in ZZZ. Took as much fuel as ATOG would allow. Checked in halfway with Dispatch; was told weather had moved through. Entering Florida; we got a route that took us in big loop to approach ZZZ from the south. Sent route to Dispatch; was told weather was building again; two alternates; ZZZ1 and ZZZ2. Got holding prior to ZZZ. Weather looked terrible over ZZZ; no way to get through to ZZZ1. Clear to ZZZ2. ATC was saturated. First Officer got a word in about making plans to divert; ATC took it as immediate divert; gave us priority. This was fine; weather started building in ZZZ2. Told Dispatch was diverting to ZZZ2. Set up for ILS (visual conditions); then ATC changed runway due to new thunderstorm. Set up for new runway; far too high due to ATC change. Tried to get down; got hit by +20 airspeed shear. Another carrier went around in front due to windshear. We weren't going to be stable; so went around. [We] came back in for second try. Another airline went around due to conditions in front of us. Visual conditions until very short final; [were] huge downburst and windshear; not safe to land. [We] went around. Departure said ZZZ was now better than ZZZ2. Still had 6.5 gas; went to ZZZ. Told Dispatch. Set up for 10L ILS; shot approach. Short final; Tower called 3;000 RVR due to heavy rain; below minimums. Lost sight of the runway and went around. [We were] informed that ZZZ1 was now 'light rain;' diverted to ZZZ1 with 5.2; shot visual; landed.I guarantee I made mistakes in diversion planning; approaches and missed approaches. ATC was nothing but helpful; but we were operating with incomplete information. Tighter coordination with Dispatch and ATC; unfortunately; both were saturated. Our onboard radar was not useful; just showed red without enough resolution to find best route. Dispatch was trying; but there were diversions everywhere. They weren't much help in picking good diversion plan. ATC helped a lot; but their choice of runways didn't work. Luckily; I started the diversion with enough fuel to have choices.' Fast-building thunderstorms cut off both alternates and required multiple missed approaches.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reports multiple missed approaches at two airports due to weather; finally landing at a third with less than 5;000 LBS of fuel.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I began to crossfeed from the right tank to left engine to correct a 50 lb imbalance. I forgot all about it. I asked for descent to 6;000 feet due to headwind. Passing 7;000 feet both engines suffered a partial power loss. I trouble shot and tried to restore power using various throttle; mixture settings. The right engine failed and was secured. I [advised ATC]. Passing 2;000 feet I finally noticed the right tank was empty and the left engine still on the right tank. I switched the left engine back to left tank; restored full power to left engine. I diverted to MKE and landed. Everything PIC could have done wrong; he did.




Synopsis: Cessna 414 pilot reported an engine failure.