elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E EUG
ATC / advisory: TRACON EUG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were planning to do a visual approach to MFR runway 32 and were sequenced behind an aircraft doing the same thing. For spacing reasons and because there was an unreported layer of clouds; we were vectored onto the LOC/BC-B approach. The Captain briefed the approach on the downwind vector and we finished just as we were given the base vector. I asked for and received flaps 8 and 20 and we were told to turn to a final heading and maintain our current altitude (8700) until established. We were in and out of the clouds at this time. I initially bugged what I thought was the next altitude (7800) but the captain corrected me and I bugged 8400 ft. Just as the localizer captured but before we started a descent; we received a 'Terrain; Terrain' warning followed by 'Pull up'. I added max thrust and pitched up slightly but did not hit the TOGAs or really get the nose up. The Captain prompted me and I continued the maneuver. I climbed to approximately 9500 feet before leveling off (I didn't know exactly what altitude to climb to and didn't want to climb too far and cause a potential traffic conflict; even though I didn't see any traffic). We actually could see the airport from that position so we executed a visual and landed without incident.I believe that the cause of the event was either a poor vector by ATC or oversensitivity of the EGPWS. We couldn't have prevented this event. However; I believe I could have performed better. I had briefed terrain as a threat but didn't review the EGPWS escape maneuver. This was the first time that I had performed this maneuver for real and the first time I had practiced it or really even thought about it since initial sim. The escape maneuver is now on my list of things to periodically review.


Second narrative: I believe that our vector onto the LOC BC from the southeast at 8700 placed us in close proximity to terrain just south of ASHIE intersection of 7500. Without having the gear down that could have set off the EGPWS warning. We could have asked ATC for a higher vectoring altitude.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported taking evasive action after receiving an EGPWS terrain warning on a visual approach to Runway 32 at MFR. The ATC vector was possibly a factor in the incident.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Extremely strong fuel smell during taxi in.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported a fuel odor during taxi to arrival gate.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to boarding Maintenance was informed that a strong odor was in the aircraft cabin and cockpit. The APU was running from the prior crew with the air conditioning pack on. Maintenance advised that it was just the heat causing the odor. I felt that the odor was related to the packs (ACM) running with a possible over temp condition - so I secured the APU and packs (turned both off). The aircraft was boarded after being cleared by Maintenance. Ready to run the preflight checklist I started the APU and turned the right AC pack ON. When we got to the hydraulic check we noted only 2 quarts of fluid. At once we turned the APU OFF and pack OFF and deplaned the passengers.Note: passengers were on board approximately 15 minutes and crew was on board approximately 45 minutes. I noticed the First Officer's eyes were very red. The flight attendants advised me that they all had dry eyes and some degree of a headache. My eyes and nose were irritated and I had an elevated heart rate. The paramedics were called and we all had elevated systolic blood pressure between 150-160. Two flight attendants elected to go to the hospital; one for headache and vomiting and the other for foaming of the mouth and headache. I advised the paramedics that I assumed we were exposed to hydraulic fluid vapors and that the type was Skydrol. They were not familiar with Skydrol nor with dangers of exposure to hydraulic fluid. No guidance was given to our crew for possible exposure to hydraulic fluid/vapors. I asked if we should all go to the hospital and was told that the paramedics can't advise that. I advised the two crew members most affected to go to the hospital. I walked with the remaining crew to the parking garage and advised them to all shower well when they get home to remove any contaminants. Maintenance could research strong odors in the aircraft until a cause is found prior to boarding an aircraft.




Synopsis: A MD-83 Captain reported that he; and his entire crew became ill during preflight after a very strong odor was detected and hydraulic fluid loss were observed with the right pack ON.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction; Time Pressure
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 FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being cleared for a visual approach to Runway 7; the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD and #1 HYD ISO VLV caution lights illuminated intermittently.  I referenced the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD checklist while the First Officer (FO) continued to set up for the approach.  Hydraulic pressures were normal.  I completed the checklist; just as the FO called for flaps and gear for landing.  We configured normally and landed the aircraft; but did not have normal braking available after landing.  Did not have any trouble slowing and stopping the aircraft with props and parking brake.  Nosewheel steering was still operable; so we cleared the runway; shutdown; and called for a tow to the gate.After landing we realized that we hadn't completed the #1 HYD ISO VLV checklist prior to landing.  That checklist would have alerted us to the loss of normal braking prior to landing; which would have been nice to know; and would have motivated us to declare an emergency; which we hadn't done.I had originally intended to address both caution lights; and chose to do the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD checklist first.  I should have asked the FO to delay the approach so we would have had more time to assess the problem; (which; it turns out; was a leak in the #1 hydraulic system) and complete all appropriate checklists.  By the time I had completed the ROLL SPLR INBD HYD checklist; it was time to configure for landing; which completely distracted me from my initial intention of addressing the #1 HYD ISO VLV checklist.  In reviewing the checklist after landing; we could see that the only difference it would have made is that we would have been alerted to the loss of normal braking beforehand; and could have declared an emergency prior to landing. So I would say that task saturation would be a contributing cause to our not addressing the #1 HYD ISO VLV checklist prior to landing.




Synopsis: A Q400 ROLL SPLR INBD HYD and #1 HYD ISO VLV caution lights illuminated intermittently so the QRH was partially completed prior to landing. After landing with no brakes or nose wheel steering; the crew realized they had not completed the checklists which would have alerted a hydraulic system leak.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FTY.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon taxiing from our parking position; the propeller struck a rubber orange cone placed in front of the airplane by FBO personnel; throwing the cone across the ramp. We shut down and opted to drive to our destination to allow maintenance to investigate any propeller damage when they were available. Despite my performing a walk-around preflight (including turning the prop over a couple of times); a sport pilot rated passenger checking the engine oil door; and an FBO fuel truck operator; none of the three of us noticed the orange cone which had apparently been placed in front of the airplane less than ten feet in front of the nose (judging from how far we taxied. I never saw it). I believe the focus of my preflight was inward; that is; looking at the plane; rather than its surroundings. Once in the airplane and started the cone was too low beneath the nose to see it from the cabin. This was merely a stupid mistake that is hard to explain how both of us pilots could have missed it. In the future I will always take a 'broad view' of the airplane and surroundings after my detailed walk-around and be sure to look for potential hazards in the area; on the taxiway; etc. I would also suggest the FBO not place cones in front of the plane. Cones at the wingtips may help avoid planes getting too close and hitting wingtips but cones in front of the planes seem to offer little benefit.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot struck a rubber cone with the prop while taxiing from parking.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: Tower BNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: BNA was using Runway 31 at night due to their noise abatement policy. Had to bypass three operational; well lit runways (Runway 02 R/C/L) to land on an elevated runway; which does not have centerline lights; PAPIs; or approach lights; only REILs. Very dark; black hole approach; which is not used for landing during the day. All Runway 02 approach lights were on and operational; but Tower forced us to use this backup runway. Was even told by Center to fly landing north transition for BNA. Wasn't told about the Runway 31 Visual until talking to Approach. Called Tower Supervisor and was told ATC does not like the noise abatement policy; but are being told to use it after a certain hour due to one house complaining on final for the 02s. One house stops approaches to three runways? [I am] worried someone will attempt this visual without [glide path guidance] and land short.Stop this noise abatement policy and use whichever runway the winds favor and has the appropriate lighting for night approaches.




Synopsis: A B737-700 captain expressed concern that a noise abatement policy at BNA requires aircraft to land on Runway 31 at night.  The runway has no centerline; approach or touchdown zone lights and no visual glide path guidance and the reporter characterizes its use for visual approaches at night as a 'black hole' approach.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the Hold Short line for runway XX; I heard another aircraft announce it was on the RNAV for runway XX and was planning to do a low approach. I asked the aircraft its location and I thought I heard him say 7 miles. I took the runway and announced I was departing runway XX. Within 5-10 seconds the pilot of the other aircraft announced he was breaking off and that I was in his way. He then immediately flew overhead and to the right of my aircraft approximately 300 feet above. I realized instead of saying 7 miles; he must have said 1.7 or 2.7 or something. I don't know the aircraft type and didn't catch his tail number; but it was a twin.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a conflict developed after taking the runway in front of an arriving aircraft.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Equipment
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was sent out to [the] gate to remove panels for customs on Aircraft X; an A321 Airbus. I requested from lead mechanic for documentation on which panels and was told that there was none. When I arrived at the gate; a mechanic that was assigned to an aircraft in the gate next to [our] gate informed me that a Customs Agent had put a stand underneath the aircraft nose when it was extended during cargo unloading and the aircraft had settled onto the stand and was pulled out. When I asked the customs agents about the stand to question the agent about how hard it was to remove the stand to give me an idea of possible damage they said they didn't know. I believe they lied. I was asked by a Customs Agent to remove a panel in the forward cargo bay. When I went to get assistance and the log book to document the maintenance; the Customs Agent removed the panel himself. Non compliance with company section XX.XX and associated 14 CFRs. No coordination between corporate security and aircraft maintenance management. Corporate security notifies maintenance management of the need for mechanics to assist Customs. Maintenance management documents needed maintenance (panels removed ect.) Mechanics are assigned to monitor customs agents and accomplish required assist.




Synopsis: Technician reported Customs Agent positioned a maintenance stand under the nose of the aircraft; which settled on the stand; damaging the skin and was removing panels in the cargo bay without informing Maintenance.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After all pre-flight checks and protocols were executed; the aircraft took off. Shortly after takeoff (~1.5 seconds); the aircraft was observed as acting in a strange manner (non-commanded oscillations and yaw movements). The Pilot in Command (PIC) reacted to the problem immediately and began the sequence for regaining control of the aircraft. 4 seconds later; the aircraft continued to ascend to ~35' AGL; still performing the uncharacteristic yaw/oscillation movements. It was the decision of the PIC (as per protocol) to land the aircraft immediately. The PIC was only able to control throttle at this point (5 seconds into flight). Therefore; he made the decision to decrease throttle at an extensive rate to land the aircraft abruptly. The aircraft landed ~50' from its original take off point. Total altitude throughout the entire mission was ~35'. The highest ground speed during the incident was ~5'/second. The aircraft performed an emergency landing. Although damage to the aircraft; 3rd party property was not damaged and no person (flight crew or otherwise) was physically harmed during the mishap. Preliminary analysis from the flight crew determined that there was a sensor issue triggered immediately after takeoff which induced uncommon aircraft characteristics. Further analysis of this issue will be performed to determine the root cause(s). The aircraft is currently not in an airworthy state and will not be flying until (1) the internal investigation is complete and (2) the flight crew has the necessary external approvals to do so.




Synopsis: UAV ground commander reported the drone flying erratically after takeoff.
Date: 201211
Location: EDDF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not 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 Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When selecting ILSY 25R approach; the frequency for ILSX 25R auto tunes. This problem has existed on [this aircraft] for a week or 2 and other pilots have cycled the approaches until the correct freq was entered. No luck with that technique; so manually selected the correct ILS freq. This auto tuning fault is unique to [this particular aircraft]; per conversations with other captains.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reports that one of his company's aircraft auto tunes the frequency for ILS X [Z] 25R at EDDF when the ILS Y 25R is selected in the FMC. Manual entry is required to over ride.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During today's dual flight; we tested the brakes and taxied to 14 via C; A to do run up and depart south west. When we reached 14; we taxied to C to do run up while other aircraft was holding short 14 at A. While moving forward; we lost left brake pressure on both side. The aircraft was close to grass; so we started using the right brake pressure to prevent entering on the grass; but the aircraft started yawing to the right moving closer to the aircraft on hold short; creating collision hazard. We managed to stop the plane and taxied back to ramp safely and squawked it.




Synopsis: C172 Flight Instructor reported brake failure during taxi.