elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After passing through 10;000 feet the Captain and I noticed an unusual smell circulating through the crew cabin. We called the Flight Attendant and she confirmed that she could smell the scent through the cockpit door.  The smell was not dissipating so we decided to don oxygen masks and run the QRC/QRH. We [notified] ATC and the Captain notified the Flight Attendant; passengers; and company of the situation.  We received radar vectors for the return to field at ZZZZ on the ILS Approach.  The approach and landing was normal.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported an unusual smell in the flight deck during initial climb resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: L52.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class G L52
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was approaching L52 from the north/west to enter a left downwind for Runway 29. As I was crossing the shoreline at 1;000 AGL (one mile out) and decelerating; my passenger and I spotted two powered gliders crossing the departure end of 29 at approximately 900 feet AGL.They seemed to be transitioning from the southern part of the dunes to the norther part of the dunes through the upwind part of the traffic pattern. I veered the aircraft slightly more to the south to avoid them when I spotted another powered glider transitioning from the south to the north by intersection the downwind leg of the left pattern to 29. He was coming directly toward my aircraft in the opposite direction of traffic pattern. I then had to veer slightly to the left (north/east) to avoid that vehicle. I then landed without incident on 29.When parked at transient space we witnessed another powered glider takeoff from the tarmac and join the other gliders.  They continued to overfly the airport at pattern altitude and not seem to adhere by any observable pattern.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC with powered gliders during approach to L52 non-towered airport. Reporter stated the gliders were not following pattern procedures.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D APF
ATC / advisory: Tower APF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Established on left downwind for RWY 14; APF Tower cleared to land the twin prop. At the same time a G-IV; located west south-west of the airport; was approaching the field and he requested to use visual for RWY 05; the request was approved. When the twin prop turned on final; tower requested the G-IV to square the base to final approach. When the twin prop was on short final RWY 14; the G-IV was cleared to land RWY 05. On RWY 14; between intersection C3 and C2; the twin prop was suddenly requested to clear the runway. The request was able to be complied with only aggressive usage of brakes; and not without distress due to the closeness of space. The only intersection available before the intersecting runways was C2; the space at that point is confined and less than few hundreds feet.  As the twin prop was aggressively applying brakes to exit RWY 14 the G-IV was on runway 05 decelerating before the two intersecting runways. At the time the Tower gave this unexpected instruction; the twin prop did not have any room left; and any possible evasive action at that point was therefore lost. In case the usage of the full runway length should have been required the result could have been disastrous. The twin prop was cleared to land first and without any restriction. The runway available (14) between touchdown and RWY 05 is less than 2;500 feet. At the time the G-IV was cleared to land; the twin prop was maneuvered with an immediate short landing to avoid a possible catastrophe. At that phase of the flight the possibility of a go-around maneuver was also lost.




Synopsis: C310 pilot reported he had to brake very aggressively to avoid a collision with a business jet landing on an intersecting runway.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
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 B PIT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC used radar vectors to place us inside the FAF on a modified left base to 28C. 28C is served by an RNAV approach that was loaded and active. After accepting the visual approach; I sequenced the approach in the FMS to provide a backup. When I looked up I noticed that the FO (First Officer) had set 1;600 (minimums for the approach) in the box. I asked him why he set it and he stated that that was the minimums. I announced 'you are getting low.' He did not change the descent path and when I looked down we were descending at 1;800 feet per minute. Just as I saw that the terrain warning went off. I instructed the FO to climb. We did and resumed the visual approach manually. The FO stated he believed Captains did not want FOs hand flying the aircraft on approach. I reminded him that visual approaches require us to hand fly below 1;500. Excessive descent rate as a result of over-reliance on automation and a lack of situational awareness combined with my inattentiveness while programming the FMS lead to a low altitude/terrain alert. If we had followed SOPs; I doubt this would have occurred. The FO set a new altitude without announcing the change and used an excessive descent rate that wasn't needed. He may have been aided had our FMS had LPV capability. The GP would have signaled the excessive rate of descent and being below the 3 degree glide path.I would also suggest changing the responsibility of setting the altitude alerted to the PM (Pilot Monitoring). If the PF (Pilot Flying) has to request the change; 'secret' changes like this would be less common.


Second narrative: Cleared for visual; got below glideslope; then returned back onto glide slope. Remained in autopilot with more than required descent rate.In the future use LPV for situational awareness.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on approach to PIT.
Date: 201306
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [The flight] was released by [another] shift but I took it over. It had 2 conflicting placards that were missed by Maintenance; Dispatch; and the flight crew. The aircraft was already in the air when I took over the desk. I was not notified of error until [the next day] in an email from the Chief Dispatcher. The Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) and the right engine high pressure shutoff valve were both on the deferred list. Per the APU MEL we cannot have the HPSOV on placard. The APU MEL was already on the release and Maintenance added the HPSOV. There is no verbiage in that MEL that says these two MELs can be dispatched.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported that he was notified that he had worked a flight that had conflicting deferred items.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LIMC.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Jeppesen charts in all three iPads; though current; did not have the correct departure. Fortunately; the shipsets did have the correct chart for departure. Our clearance was the DOGUB 5T. It does not exist on the Jeppesen iPad charts. In the shipset it is page 10-3H. The 10-3H page in the iPad was the TELVA 7G. This is wrong.Also the list in the iPad is not in numerical page order. It is listed in alphabetical which makes it difficult to tell if pages are missing. Also there are multiple departures on some pages and therefore; they are not all in alphabetical order! It is difficult to find departure when not listed first on that page. Also the iPad charts are extremely difficult to read from the glare from the sun due to the iPad screen and the extremely poor placement of the suction mount on the window.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported some difficulties with their iPad EFB's; including content and readability.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Leg one of a four-day trip; Captains takeoff. At approximately 100 knots; the Master Caution Light with ENG on the copilot 'six pack' illuminated. I called out the engine warning; verified that both engines were operating normally on their engine instruments and the Captain stated 'continue.' There was no adverse yaw involved. This ENG light went out a short time later. In conjunction with the Master Caution Light and again at approximately 100 knots; on my airspeed indicator I saw an 'IAS disagree.' I looked at the standby airspeed indicator and saw that it matched mine; but did not announce this indication. I also verified that the pitot heat was ON. Sometime later before V1; the Captain said 'I have no airspeed indicator.' Rotation was normal; although the autothrottles had kicked off at some point. Gear retraction was normal and upon initial flap retraction; the Captain's stall limiter activated. Again; I verified my airspeed indicator with the STBY airspeed indicator and they were both in agreement. The Captain's airspeed indicator read zero. We continued the climb and the stick shaker ceased at approximately 250 knots. I believe when the Captains airspeed indicator returned to normal at this point. He was flying off the STBY until then. The aircraft operated normally for the remainder of the flight. We wrote both issues up on the way into our destination.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain's airspeed indicator failed during the takeoff roll as IAS disagree alerted along with the ENG and the Master Caution lights; but the takeoff continued and the airspeed returned to normal at 250 knots in the climb.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MRI
ATC / advisory: Tower MRI
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft X was sequenced and cleared to land on Runway 25. They were number one for the runway about 1 mile final when they asked about an aircraft on the runway. I scanned the runway and there were no aircraft on the runway. I told Aircraft X I did not see any aircraft on the runway. They came back and said there was an aircraft on the runway; and I sent them around.All three tower positions scanned the runway and did not observe any aircraft. About that time; it appeared that Aircraft X was overflying Taxiway N on their go-around. I sequenced them into left traffic and told them it appeared they were lined up for Taxiway N on their approach. I asked if they needed the lights on to help with lining up for the runway; but they came back with they got it figured out.Both GC (Ground Control) and LC (Local Control) were looking at Aircraft X with binoculars to ensure gear was down just prior to the report. From our vantage point in the tower; it did not appear; or we were able to visually see that Aircraft X was lined up with N taxiway.After Aircraft X landed and called the Tower; they stated they saw an aircraft exit the runway and turn on Taxiway G. Taxiway G does not intersect with Runway 25 but does intersect with Taxiway N.Aircraft lining up with taxiways at MRI is becoming quite common. The runway and taxiway markings are very worn; and pilots have said they are hard to see from the air.My recommendation would be to apply fresh paint to the airport markings.Additionally; a warning about surfaces that look like parallel runways (Taxiway Q; N; A) should be notated on the airport diagram.




Synopsis: MRI Tower Controller reported an aircraft was lined up for a taxiway instead of the runway resulting in a conflict and go-around. Reporter stated this is a common occurrence and cited worn runway and taxiway markings may be contributing to the events.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During cruise flight another airplane had a stuck mic for about 10 minutes. After the mic became unstuck; ATC called our flight number; and the pilot not flying acknowledged his query. Five minutes later a Controller; I believe it was now a different Controller from before; announced our flight number and said 'if you're still here go to' and gave us a new frequency. We acknowledged and changed frequencies. We checked in with this Controller and were told they'd been trying to contact us for 5 minutes. We replied that we'd been on the other frequency during the hot mic event; and had responded to the Controller's query on the same frequency when the mic became unstuck; and had then switched to this frequency when instructed. Also; at this time; there were two other Company airplanes on frequency that the Controller mixed up several times. I believe the Controller; overloaded from the stuck mic event; and the similar sounding flights our three company flights; had thought he gave us a frequency change; when in fact he did not. The Controller told us because they couldn't get a hold of us that we caused problems for Center; almost as if he thought we had the stuck mic; when in fact we did not and were available for contact on the previous frequency the whole time after the mic became unstuck and communications could once again flow without problem.The event was initiated by the stuck mic of an airliner for 10 minutes. We both had our 'antenna' up because of the stuck mic. The Controller was overloaded due to lack of communications between all planes. We replied to the Controller's query when the mic became unstuck; but I believe the Controller then forgot about us or thought he told us to switch; but he never actually did.




Synopsis: The Captain of a small corporate jet reports communication problems and ATC confusion when a stuck mic on frequency renders communications unavailable for about 10 minutes. Similar company call signs contribute to ATC's confusion.
Date: 202008
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Today I had a passenger that would put on his mask when told then he would take it off. When boarding I did not notice if he was wearing a mask or not but kindly a passenger on board notified me that he was not wearing a mask and by the looks of it she had told him and he wouldn't listen so I kindly asked him to put on a mask but he didn't have one so I gave him one. After boarding was complete and the door was closed I did all my walk throughs and everything was good. While up in the air I did my service announcement which is telling passengers that I won't be doing a service and that a mask must be worn during the entire flight; I did the mask announcement twice before departure and while in the air...I just sat during the flight until it was time to do the final approach announcement. I walked back to collect any garbage and I noticed that he was sleeping and did not have his mask on. I kindly told him again that he needed to have his mask on. He put it on and I kept walking. The same passenger that had notified me the first time that he didn't have a mask is a Company X employee. She showed me her badge and said that he hadn't had his mask the entire flight and that she would report the flight because I did not do anything. I told her that that was OK. I walked back to the galley; threw out the trash and walked back to do my compliance check and the passenger had removed his mask I told him that he needed to put it on again this time more strictly. I walked to my jumpseat and got ready for landing. While deplaning this passenger did not have his mask on. I'm not sure what I was supposed to do in this situation. I did not notify the Captain because we were landing in a few and [the passenger] was not verbally rude or aggressive.I do not think it is my fault that a passenger refused to wear his mask; I did all the right announcements and helped him with a mask and asked him a couple times to put it on.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that a passenger was not being compliant with wearing a face mask during the flight.