elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft had 3 MEL's 28-XX-X; 28-XX-Y; 28-XX-Z. There were other issues with the aircraft involving an autopilot and auto throttle that required maintenance to be aboard the aircraft. All the deferrals required long; convoluted language to review so I decided to query the maintenance personnel if all procedures where completed via the MEL. The fuel load was approximately 14.2 in the mains and 8.0 in the center. After reviewing all MEL procedures more than once; we decided that the aircraft was good to go for normal operation per MEL procedures 28-XX-Y. The hidden problem was MEL 28-XX-X that the flight could not operate with the cross feed open. This conflicted with the previous MEL since fuel was in the center tank. Per the center fuel pump inop procedures we took off and fuel was used at a normal point until depleted prior to ZZZ. No other legs after that required fuel in the center tank. Our flight release had no notation the crossfeed valve was restricted. I also operated on the best knowledge that we were being dispatched to ZZZ tankering fuel to ZZZ precluding the need to uplift fuel in ZZZ and that the maintenance personnel provided me information knowing they knew that fuel was in the center tank. These multiple MEL's were convoluted and confusing at best. Our previous flight that day with a flip to a night operation could also been a contributing factor in the form of fatigue.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reports departing with multiple MELs concerning inoperative fuel gauges and discovers; once airborne; that they may have had conflicting requirements.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Made approach to full stall landing in tailwheel airplane on Runway 2. Requested wind-check; wind reported as 360 at 6 knots. Landed on centerline on numbers in approximate 3-point attitude; but did not have tailwheel firmly on the ground. Airplane began to drift right; corrected with left rudder. Left rudder/tailwheel not effective; airplane continued to drift right. Airplane rolled slowly off right edge of runway between runway lights onto grass; came to halt about 50 feet to the right of the right edge of runway and parallel with runway. Tower asked if I needed assistance. I replied that I did not. I asked for and was given clearance back onto the runway. Turned left onto taxiway Charlie; taxied to T-hangar with Ground control. Examined tailwheel mechanism; found it to be working normally.2 hours later went back and made 3 landings in same airplane. Wind now reported 030-050 at 6-9. Made 3 full-stall landings; making sure to hold stick full aft. Airplane tracked center of runway perfectly.




Synopsis: Pilot reported drifting off the right side of the runway in a tailwheel aircraft after a normal three point touchdown with a very slight left crosswind. Postflight inspection of the tailwheel revealed no anomalies. Three landings were made with a stronger left crosswind with no control difficulties noted.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: Premier 1
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BJC
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Local controller had an IFR Aircraft X that executed a go-around due to high winds. The local controller told Aircraft X that if it wanted to enter the pattern and try another approach that it would have to cancel IFR.  The pilot decided to stay in the pattern and try another approach. The local controller said to 'Report cancellation of IFR.'  The aircraft made another go-around due to winds.  Now it is a VFR aircraft in low visibility and low ceilings trying to find another airport. The local controller prompting an IFR aircraft to go VFR goes against the 7110.65 and now put the aircraft in a severe disadvantage; unsafe and possibly confusing situation.  Possible making more work for the TRACON; requiring it to reissue an IFR clearance to get the aircraft another airport.  Controllers not following standard rules or just not knowing the rules increased this risk and workload for this aircraft.  Recurrent training focusing on IFR aircraft controlled by VFR towers is recommended.




Synopsis: BJC Controller reports of another controller prompting a pilot to cancel IFR to remain in the pattern at the airport.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right after deplaning in ZZZ; a smell overcame the air duct system on the plane. I immediately went to R1 to open the door. I received fresh air very quickly. I also informed the FO (First Officer) about the violent odor and he shut down the air. He then went outside to find out what it was. The odor was like fiberglass burning or a plastic. Very powerful though. The 2 FAs (Flight Attendants) in back could not escape the smell. The cleaners in back could not escape the smell. The A FA who is also 20 weeks pregnant; could not escape the smell. After the other 3 FAs got off the plane; maintenance came upstairs and apologized. They said it was the Herman Nelson (Ground Air/Heater Unit) that caused the smell. They were using it to try and unfreeze the water valve. The Captain; FO; and myself had all doors and the flight deck windows open for over 1/2 hr to try to get the smell out. The air was turned on again to try and clear the system. Yes; the odor lasted for at least a half hr. I was fortunate to always make sure I had fresh air during my stay on the plane. I did not leave the plane for any of the lengthy delay. The other 3 FAs were released from the return flight home. I worked the return flight home. Same as previous version. My getting fresh air kept me from being affected.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendants reported a fume event occurred shortly after arrival deplaning resulting in Flight Attendants experiencing physiological symptoms.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had performed two takeoffs and landings and on the third takeoff; right after retracting the gear; I lost all electrical power. I was in the pattern at a towered airport. I reached in the back seat and got my handheld radio; dialed in the Tower frequency and notified the Tower of my problem. They asked my intentions and I said I'd like to go back and forth over the airport while using the emergency gear extension procedure. I followed the procedure but had difficulty getting the gear down. I could use the bar in the cockpit to retract the gear but not lower it. After many attempts and at least 2 fly bys of the Tower for them to check visually; I was finally able to lower the gear.At some point the electrical power came back (the airplane has a generator instead of an alternator) and I put my headset back on. Performed landing but kept my foot on the landing gear bar in the cockpit to ensure the gear stayed down and locked during landing but this made it almost impossible to retract flaps (that I had deployed) or to use the hand brake (there are no toe brakes in the plane). While doing this I went off the runway and onto the grass. I was able to stop the plane and roll onto the taxi way. The Tower said to taxi back to the east ramp where I parked.




Synopsis: Following the temporary loss of electrical power and subsequent difficulty utilizing the emergency landing gear extension procedure of his PA24-180; the pilot was unable to prevent the aircraft from exiting the runway during the landing. He rolled onto a taxiway and no damage resulted.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
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: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC assigned TBARR 1 STAR where we needed to be above FL200 at TBARR. During a busy phase we were told to descend via the TBARR arrival 35L transition. We began to comply. After a few minutes of preparing for this transition; which was new to us; we were then assigned 'descend via TBARR except maintain FL190 for traffic.'.  It was read back and understood by the pilot monitoring. The pilot flying however took it to mean remain on the course of the arrival but descend to FL190 now. We reached FL190 before TBARR fix going below the advised en-route altitude. Causal factors for the event were busy phase of flight; multiple clearances; misinterpretation of clearance given; and lack of clarification from both pilots of the meaning of the clearance. ATC could clarify the meaning of this instruction with one or two extra words to assist pilots in desired meaning. Pilots could ask for clarification if needed.




Synopsis: Captain reported descending below the charted TBARR crossing altitude; following a misinterpretation of ATC's; 'descend via; except maintain' instructions.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The engine began running roughly as I descended toward pattern altitude. I called and reported the engine trouble and was given a vector to [a nearby airport] after I advised I would not be able to make it to [the airport]. The engine eventually died and I landed safely. Upon inspection it appeared the right tank was empty and the left had only two gallons remaining. ATC's command [vector] to turn right might have rendered that fuel unable to gravity feed (but I'm no mechanic). Although I had leaned the mixture often and--what I believed--was correctly; it appears the aircraft was using 11 GPH instead of the planned 8. The only thing I can think of is maybe the power setting was too high (although I believed it was within the eight GPH range and was absolutely in the green arc). We should have easily landed at our fuel stop with more than 45 minutes of fuel remaining.




Synopsis: A C-172 pilot deadsticked to a safe landing at a closer airport when the engine failed due to fuel starvation as he was descending toward his destination.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We we're establish on the appraoch to Runway 18R when the autopilot did a hard right turn then a hard left turn and then we were off course for the appraoch. ATC vectored us around and landed. Autopilot malfunction.

Callback: The reporter believes that the autopilot was at fault but other factors involved were distance from runway (15 NM); aircraft ahead on the approach and VMC. Autopilot was not used during the second approach.



Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reports autopilot deviations right and left of course while tracking the localizer and glideslope for Runway 18R at CLT. The aircraft ended up too close to Runway 18C and was vectored around for another approach and the autopilot was not used.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An A320 was on Runway 10L ILS approach to PDX. When he checked on my frequency; I immediately issued traffic on two targets that appeared to be in the pattern for Runway 8 at VUO. The pilot stated that he was just starting to break out at about 2;000 FT; but did not have the traffic in sight due to rain and poor visibility. One of the targets appeared to be turning base in front of the A320; so issued traffic again. He never saw the traffic. After passing VUO; the pilot stated that he had been unable to stay on the glide slope due to the traffic. He was not happy and obviously felt it was an unsafe operation. He was still able to continue visually and land. Open a Tower at VUO and control the traffic. Current VUO procedures are a joke. The VUO advisory position monitors a CTAF frequency but can't control anything. It's also confusing to the pilots.


Second narrative: I was on the Pearson advisory position; monitoring the VUO CTAF frequency. Several aircraft had reported in the VUO Runway 08 traffic pattern; including a C172; a SR22; and another C172. An A320 was on an ILS approach to Runway 10L at PDX. I issued traffic information and a wake turbulence advisory on CTAF when the A320 was about 3 miles west of VUO descending through 020; this is about 6 mile final to Runway 10L. At or about that time the A320 pilot leveled off and left the glide slope due to the VUO traffic. I issued information again as the A320 passed over VUO at 1;300 FT descending. The 10L glide slope goes directly over the 08 threshold and penetrates the airspace. Two of the VUO aircraft reported light chop on short final below 100 FT. The ceiling was about 018. Put a Control Tower back at VUO to control the traffic.


Synopsis: PDX Controllers voiced concern regarding the current procedures between PDX arrival traffic and aircraft operating at the VUO airport. The reporters recommend an ATC Tower be established at VUO.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise we received an ECAM stating HYD Y SYS LO RSVR. We followed the appropriate procedures for this event. As a precaution we declared an emergency with Approach Control. Except for the loss of the right thrust reverser the approach; landing; rollout and taxi to the gate were normal.




Synopsis: An A321 flight crew declared an emergency and landed uneventfully at their destination when the Yellow Hydraulic System failed due to low fluid.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; MEL; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We arrived at the Gate for our originator and were briefed by the Operations Agent that we had two (2) missing life vests at Seat 17A and 17B; but that the pouches were sealed with the appropriate security seal. The discrepancy was not fixed by the cleaning crew or Ground Operations because they were unsure of the location of the spare life vests. There would also need to be a logbook entry and associated MEL for the usage and therefore missing spare life vests. All these tasks were accomplished per Ops Binder.First of all; kudos to the Cleaning Crew for finding the missing life vests even though there was a seal present on the pouches. I am writing this [report] as a safety concern; since I started wondering how long the life vests had been missing and how or why the pouches were sealed without the life vests being present. I am certain that the implications could be dire during a situation requiring their use.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported multiple sealed Life Vest Pouches with no life vests inside on airplane.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Forecast winds were 310/20. Upon arrival found winds 320/13G22. Calculated crosswind and found the best runway to be 29 with a crosswind component of 14 knots with gust. While the Type Data Certificate sets no crosswind limit; the manufacturer suggest 14 knots. Set up a for a half flaps approach. Performed a wheel landing. On rollout as the tail came down wind gusted. Despite full aileron and opposite rudder aircraft weathervane into the wind attempts to correct were not successful. The airplane nosed over and caught the left wing tip on the way down.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper PA18 recognized wind conditions approaching the recommended limit for the aircraft. During landing rollout the pilot lost control; resulting in minor damage.