elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the approach on the ILS with the First Officer flying as part of his European route re qualification; First Officer called for the flaps to be moved from position 5 to 15. EICAS message appeared 'TE flap asymmetry.' We requested vectors off of the approach to go into holding to handle the problem. The pilot not flying and Relief pilot completed the checklist. [We] notified Dispatch and the flight attendants. Declared an emergency with ATC as a precaution and requested the longest runway. Captain elected to take over as pilot flying and landed aircraft within touchdown zone. [We] used autobrakes 3 and normal reverse for landing. Exited runway and taxied to the gate uneventfully. [We] debriefed with station Maintenance personnel and outbound flight crew.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reports a TE Flap Asymmetry during approach and the flying First Officer goes around to accomplish the QRH procedures. After completion the Captain assumes the flying duties to preform the partial flap landing.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I came to my gate early to work my next flight. A flight was still there and boarding. I watched as passenger after passenger scanned their boarding pass or mobile device across the gate reader. I even watched as one gentleman sneezed with his boarding pass in hand. The reader was never wiped down with sanitizer between scans. I believe we should be wiping down gate readers before and after each flight.




Synopsis: Gate Agent reported the electronic boarding pass readers at the gate need to be sanitized after each flight.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Entertainment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Our takeoff was normal. Passing through about 2;000 FT MSL; the flight attendants called the cockpit and stated that they smelled a strong odor of fumes in the cabin. We asked them for more information and after discussion; we determined that the odors were not normal (smelling like burnt rubber or an electrical smell). The passengers in the front cabin; mid-cabin; and aft-cabin also smelled the fume-like odors. We then put on our oxygen masks and requested an immediate return from Departure Control. We declared an emergency and ran the 'Smoke/Fire/Fumes on the Aircraft' Checklist.Communication proved difficult with the new -800 oxygen masks in flight as the loud sound of breathing made it difficult to hear. We landed and had the fire trucks follow us to the gate. The burnt smell continued (on and off) during the return to the airport and also on the taxi-in to the gate. The Fire Department then made their checks on the aircraft at the gate. We made three logbook entries; (1) the burnt; electrical odors with the emergency return; (2) a flaps 40 over speed of 3 knots (165 KIAS); and (3) an overweight landing (landing weight about 148;200 pounds). We then switched aircraft and continued on uneventfully. We need to practice with the new -800 oxygen masks during PT's and PC's.

Callback: The reporter stated that the WIFI system overheated and was producing a burning electrical odor. There was no smoke with the overheat.

Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information]


Synopsis: Shortly after takeoff; the B737-800 flight attendants notified the pilots of a burnt electrical odor so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport. The pilots reported difficultly communicating using the new style O2 masks and the odor's source was the WIFI system.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I observed the lead aircraft; a C172; on the runway and the trail aircraft; a C182; on short final. Local Control instructed the C182 to go-around because runway separation would not have been maintained. The C182 responded that they did not have enough fuel. Local Control then cleared the C182 to land. It appeared that the C172 was approximately 2;700 FT down the runway when the C182 crossed the threshold. It was unanimous among controllers in the Tower Cab that allowing the C182 to land did not pose any safety risk to either aircraft. All controllers felt that sending the C182 around would have placed the C182 in an unsafe situation given his reported fuel shortage. After a discussion with the pilot of the C182 on the Tower telephone; he reported seeing the C172 off the runway when he crossed the threshold. It did not appear that way to any controller in the Tower Cab.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a less than required landing separation event when the second aircraft refused ATC's go around instruction because of a minimum fuel situation.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Radar Jamming resulting in loss of both transponders and GNS1 and GNS2. [Caused by] Military Radar Jamming.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported one of his flights experienced loss of both transponders and other navigation equipment as a result of radar jamming procedures.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Local Controland had circling approaches to Runway's 22.  Aircraft X was issued line-up-and-wait. Previous departure delayed take off roll.  Aircraft X then delayed entry onto Runway 22L and was told to expect an immediate take off clearance.  Aircraft X was issued an immediate take off clearance.  Aircraft X delayed take off roll.  Aircraft Y turned tight base to final.  ASDE Alert went off while Aircraft Y was on still on base.  Aircraft Y was issued go around.  Recommendation; ASDE determined go-around while Aircraft Y was on base and not on final.




Synopsis: MDW Controller described a mandatory ASDE Alert go around; the reporter noting the alarm activated when the subject traffic was still on base and the departure was rolling.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying the DRLLR 5 Arrival to IAH. Told to expect the RNAV Y 26R. Briefed a vector to intercept but were given RNAV Y beginning at SKLER. Engaged heading select to follow approach as I was changing the FMC to use the SKLER transition. ATC gave us a heading and cleared us for a visual approach Runway 26R. Approach and landing uneventful from that point on. We expected a vector for an intercept to the RNAV Y RWY 26R. When assigned the RNAV Y 26R from SKLER we were over SKLER and rushed in an attempt to comply with the unexpected clearance. ATC appeared to expect what we did and issued a visual approach from our present position. I do not recall receiving an earlier expect approach clearance beginning at SKLER. That would have had us brief and execute the approach as expected by ATC. We had never flown this arrival/approach procedure to RWY 26R but in retrospect we should have briefed all approach options more thoroughly.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a track deviation occurred following a late clearance to fly the IAH RNAV Y 26R approach.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a training/currency flight with Private Pilot/student; airplane started pitching up slightly nose high. Pilot was adjusting trim; and at some point I told [pilot]that 'you are adjusting trim wrong direction'. Couple seconds later I noticed that pilot had trouble controlling airplane; and I took over. Pilot confirmed that 'trim is all the way nose down'; and I confirmed same after leveling airplane off; as well as status of Autopilot and electric trim. I asked tower to return to the field and landed on the active runway forcing controls down. After landing; we found out that trim was actually moving wrong direction (and in fact was all the way 'nose up'); due to mechanical issue/error. Neither of us were aware of recent repairs being performed on the plane; nor need for a test flight. I'm not sure about a chain of events leading to dispatching airplane as airworthy which must be grounded due to ongoing repairs.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported electing to take control of aircraft and return to the airport after they had a trim malfunction.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were approaching SAN for a LOC 27 landing. The weather was clear but a fog bank was rolling in off the coast obscuring the runway although the airport was still VMC. We prepared the VNAV during the approach but around 1800 FT I noticed we were low. We were supposed to cross REEBO at 2000 FT but we crossed around 1800 FT. As the Pilot Monitoring I set the missed approach altitude of 2500 FT at which point the aircraft began a shallow climb. The Captain as the Flying Pilot elected to go around. The missed approach was uneventful. On the downwind leg we could not get the FMC to execute the LOC 27 approach. We tried everything including typing 5000 FT in the VNAV Cruise page as we were flying at the altitude. We elected to shoot the approach raw data since we had the fixes on the Navigation Display and LOC identified. The second approach was slightly rushed and since we couldn't load the approach the Dump and Dive method was utilized. We leveled off at the MDA which was 700 FT and made visual contact with the runway with a safe landed accomplished. There were no EGPWS Warnings or cautions. SAN tower did say our descent rate was excessive but quickly came back to us and said it wasn't a problem and the second approach was continued.We had a somewhat long day but that wasn't the factor. We were expecting an uneventful approach and landing since we could see the airport and coast line from 100 miles away. When we heard an aircraft two places ahead of us on the approach say they broke out at minimums we were surprised. The controller then relayed a message that a fog bank had moved in. The aircraft was out [of] VNAV PATH causing some confusion. The second approach not being able to load the FMC got us out of our comfort level but a Raw Data approach was definitely safe. Keep the airplane in VNAV PATH during the approach. Load the FMC for a non ILS approach. Take extra time to sort out the approach.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported some difficulty getting set up and properly flying the SAN LOC Runway 27 approach in IMC.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared for a RNAV approach. Tower cleared to land; had a visual on the field and runway. Descended to minimum. Tower received an altitude alert. I advised I am in VMC and have visual. Continued to land. Controller changed command to clear for a visual. Landed. Controller filed a deviation.Discussed with supervisor and concluded I should have advised IFR flight plan canceled.




Synopsis: C-525 Captain reported a low altitude alert from ATC but was VMC and no factor.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff and climbing through 3000ft; purser called to the cockpit warning us that there was a thick layer of light-gray smoke in the mid-aft passenger cabin and a strong hydraulic-like odor (apparently it started when selecting landing gear up); which caused dizziness; sore throat and eye burn to many crewmembers and a few passengers. Both pilots immediately donned the oxygen masks as a precaution should smoke enter the cockpit.'Immediate actions' from the 'Smoke/Fumes/Avionics Smoke' QRH procedure were performed; which led to total smoke dissipation in only a minute. While the situation was under control and cabin crew confirmed no more smoke coming out (but still a strong; harmful odor/fumes); since it was a red-eye flight with few available airports for a further diversion and since smoke source was not immediately obvious (cabin crew could not determine where it was coming from) flight crew decided NOT to declare an emergency but to declare 'PAN-PAN' urgency to return to [departure airport] for landing. Landing was performed safely on [the] runway; and the aircraft was stopped short of runway to verify once again with cabin crew if there had been any more smoke or if an emergency evacuation would be required; while emergency equipment stood at the other side of runway. After confirming everything was still under control and smoke didn't come back we advised ATC and were cleared to taxi to gate as emergency equipment moved away and no further assistance was required. It was a disappointment that as we got to the gate there were neither wing-walkers nor marshalls to guide us to parking which left us sitting at the apron 5-10 minutes even though company was fully aware we were coming back. In the end; another aircraft was assigned to us to perform an uneventful flight which resulted overall in a delay. As far as crewmembers knowledge there was no aircraft damage and no passenger's injured/requiring medical assistance.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported the purser advised that there was a thick layer of light-gray smoke in passenger cabin and a strong hydraulic-like odor.
Date: 201702
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Checked in and told to expect RWY 16R. It was VMC so we expected a visual approach backed up by the ILS as briefed. On downwind at 11000 we were informed by ATC that if we accepted the RNAV Arrival our ground path would be shorter. We demurred; and had to explain that we did not want the RNAV. Flew visual approach after reporting field in sight to uneventful landing. Report submitted to highlight issue of push from ATC to get late RNAV clearance. I have had this happen multiple times in DEN ATC airspace. Have actually called local ATC rep to discuss how much time is involved in briefing an RNAV approach properly prior to flying it. It appears that DEN ATC still has controllers that are either unaware or do not understand the threat for a poorly briefed/flown RNAV approach. We even have a pilot bulletin on the issue in Denver of all places that speaks to the profile being flown with autopilot to ensure separation is not lost.Pilots tend to ask for direct and shortcuts out of habit/culture; and ATC is accommodating. If we want to avoid issues we must ensure understanding on the part of ATC of pilot requirements. It can be hard when there are multiple airlines with different procedures; and some who seem to always be able to accept what ATC provides.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the tendency of Denver Approach controllers to push pilots to accept late RNAV approach clearances.