elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right MLG wheel locked on touchdown. Aircraft exited runway at approximately 40 kts. and sustained minor damage.




Synopsis: Baron 55 Captain reported Right MLG wheel locked on touchdown; causing minor damage to aircraft.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Super King Air 200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I had descended the CE560 to 14;000; per LOA for aircraft landing PSP. The Sector 19 Controller was providing RADAR advisories to a King Air; and stopped his climb VFR at or below 13;500; for my 14;000 traffic. At 6 miles out; I called traffic for the CE560; and he said; 'I think we're going to get an RA'. I have a reasonable amount of experience with TCAS equipment; from both sides of the mic; and that was a new one for me!! I guess he must have some new predictive TCAS/RA equipment that I don't know about. In any event; a few miles later; the CE560 pilot said he was conducting an RA climb. Altitude indicated 14;400 on the scope. Aircraft passed each other and I initiated a comms change to SoCal Approach; Springs Sector.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller describes a TCAS RA event between a CE560 descending to 14;000 FT and a King Air climbing to 13;500 FT. The CE560 pilots take evasive action climbing to 14;400 FT.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: None; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Challenger CL600
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Other PPL
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Reporting an NMAC [that] occurred at ZZZ; 900 MSL on short final for XXL. Aircraft X; Cessna 172N; on VFR flight plan ZZZ1-ZZZ-ZZZ2-ZZZ1. Home based in the greater San Antonio area. Other aircraft; two pilots on deck - Aircraft Y; Bombardier CL-600.Incident happened on short final for Runway XXL. Separation of 50 ft. or less horizontally at 900 MSL until other aircraft took evasive action veering hard right. I reported midfield for XXL per ATC instructions; was informed of other traffic 8 miles out; and was cleared to land. Confirmed clearance and repeated radio call. Aircraft Y was silent on comms since my clearance. Unable to see Aircraft Y until evasive action was taken 50 ft. behind me and reported over comms. From understanding of comms between ZZZ ATC and Aircraft Y after evasive action was taken; aircraft was shooting RNAV approach for XXL and failed to report and make last call at ZZZZZ and was not cleared to land. Weather conditions at time of incident ZZZ 22011G17KT 10SM SCY041 33/22 A2998.




Synopsis: C172 pilot flying reported a Near Mid Air Collision while on approach to landing due to the other aircraft attempting to also shoot an approach at the same time on the same runway despite not making the required radio call and not being cleared to land.
Date: 202110
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A moldy smell was detected by FA2 [Flight Attendant] and FA4 during decent for landing. I did not smell anything


Second narrative: Fume event on [date]. Musty smell during preparation for landing that lasted 10-15 minutes. Captain was notified.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight attendants reported a fume event during descent and landing.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our PDC had a revised segment clearing us from JEFPO to ZADON; removing JEFPO; then on course 343; EXPECT RADAR Vectors on course. The remarks segment of the PDC; however; had a remark 'AFTER JEFPO EXPECT RV ON COURSE.' As these two statements were clearly contradictory; we contacted clearance delivery for clarification. ATC did want us to fly the 343 after JEFPO. I only bring this up as it could lead a crew to fly the revised segment vs 343 on the SID.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported confusing remarks in the PDC clearance.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were waiting at the gate when the plane came in. I talked to the inbound Captain. He told me they wrote up one of the gear indicator lights. I waited until all the passengers had deplaned. When I got to the cockpit the First Officer and Maintenance was there. Maintenance was working on replacing the lightbulb in the gear indicator light.Maintenance indicated that there was another problem with the airplane. He said 'the other day I was towing this airplane from the hanger and I noticed a rivet that was deteriorating and hydraulic fluid leaking.' He said 'I didn't write it up then because they're on my case about writing up too much stuff.' he then showed a picture of the rivet and the hydraulic leak that he had taken on his phone. He said 'I think it was Aircraft X.'He left the cockpit at this time and we started pre-flighting the airplane. He came back with a fixed light and left and took the book. The First Officer did the walk around. We loaded the passengers. It was departure time and we still do not have the logbook. We called maintenance and they told us that someone would be out to talk to us in 10 minutes but gave us no reason why. At this time we find out that the maintenance had written up the rivet and the hydraulic leak. They eventually took the airplane out of service we changed airplanes and flew on a different airplane.It is unacceptable that maintenance found an issue with the airplane and continue to let it fly for undisclosed number of days and then later took it out of service. If this is the case it continued to fly for three days with this deteriorated rivet and hydraulic leak.I am not sure why this happened. If Maintenance found a deteriorated rivet and a hydraulic leak it should've been dealt with immediately. They should not let it fly around for three days and then decide to write it up.The maintenance personnel that found the deteriorated rivet and hydraulic leak should be talked to because it's unacceptable to allow this airplane to fly around for three days with this when they knew it had an issue.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported that a maintenance technician failed to document known problems with an aircraft; resulting in the aircraft flying for several days in unairworthy condition.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
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: Climbing through 9;000 feet; [we] received a Cabin Smoke alert warning. The alert only lasted around two seconds. We took into consideration it could have been a faulty warning; but decided to [advise ATC] and land back at ZZZ on Runway XXC. Runway XY was the initial preference; but we could not get down and land in a stable configuration. Switched to [Runway] XXC to allow a more controlled approach. Landed and exited the runway while informing the fire trucks we had no visible signs of a fire; but wanted them to assess from the outside. We continued to the gate with no further problems.Cause was probably a faulty sensor. Would like to include some things we learned. During the unexpected event we get tunnel vision which degrades our situational awareness. Putting on an oxygen mask also contributed to greater loss of situational awareness. I think more training with these scenarios would be very beneficial and stressing the importance of auto-land if available.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported a temporary smoke alert warning during initial climb. Flight crew executed an uneventful return to departure airport.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after leveling off at FL200; the Captain instructed me to change the light bulb on the co-pilot side ice detection lamp; as it had not worked during the climb when attempting to check the ice probe for ice accumulation. The first bulb had a bad filament and the second one did not seat properly. I gave the second bulb back to the Captain explaining that it did not fit properly. He then instructed me to put it back into the light apparatus so that there would 'be one in there for the write up'. After closing the casing; I immediately smelled a burning odor. I instantly opened the light casing and removed the bulb. Smelling smoke; seeing traces of smoke and seeing the 'CB PNL LGHTS' circuit breaker pop. The wrong bulb was used for the ice detection lamp. After about 1 minute the Captain decided we should turn around and head back to [departure station] as the weather at the destination was low IFR. He told me to suit up; which I did (Oxygen mask and goggles). He then contacted ATC to inform them of the situation. They cleared us back to ZZZ via direct. We descended initially to 15;000 for several minutes and then to 9;000. At this point we continued to ZZZ and landed without further issue.I should have never put the wrong bulb into the light apparatus despite being told to do so by a superior. I believe that we should have descended and landed at the nearest suitable airport. ZZZ was 100 miles away when we encountered the problem. Swiss Air flight 111 is the perfect example of why we should have taken immediate action and landed the aircraft sooner than we did.




Synopsis: Dash 8 First Officer reported a burning odor and a popped circuit breaker after installing an incorrect panel light bulb.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb got HYD G Eng 1 Lo PR ECAM. Followed 7 step procedure to handle the situation. Consulted dispatch; and both local maintenance and MOC all per SOP. I believe maintenance intentionally influenced the decision to continue to destination or return to the departure airport by issuing known false info to the crew and dispatch. We were told it was an indication problem only. We believe that to be intentional false info for maintenance convenience.This act was a disregard for safety. Maintenance accountability.




Synopsis: After departure an A319 ECAM alerted HYD G ENG 1 LO PR. The crew completed the ECAM procedure then called both local Maintenance and Maintenance Control for guidance. Both said to continue because it was an indication problem but the Captain believed it was actual but continued.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
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
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the D Flight Attendant sitting in seat X4 (assigned jump seat). There was a [reward system passenger] sitting behind me in [seat] Y4 and his traveling partner in [seat] Y6. This was my first flight back after a COVID exposure from the plane. During boarding I asked Y6 to make sure her mask stayed over her nose. She said it kept falling down. I offered one of ours but she declined. During the safety demo I once again asked her to pull up her mask. As soon as we took off they both removed their masks. Multiple times I asked them to put their masks on. When we were cleaning up for landing the passenger in Y4 started shouting at me asking for my name. He said because he had a drink in front of him he didn't need to put on his mask. I once again explained our policy was that it was only supposed to be removed briefly. He said he had been on 7 different flights and nobody had asked him to put on his mask. I was the first one. I called the B Flight Attendant to join the conversation. She reiterated our policy. After talking to him for a while he said he was extremely frustrated with the inconsistency of mask policy enforcement. He calmed down when we all agreed there should be more consistency with enforcing or explaining our mask policy.Just wanted to write this up as a safety issue. He also said he would be writing in to Airline.  As a [person in the reward system] not sure if he knew better and just didn't want to wear the mask or if nobody on other flights has actually enforced our mask policy. But as someone who travels as often as he does. He clearly needs some clarification.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported a passenger was not compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying to ZZZ; assigned the XX LDA starting at ZZZ1 VOR. We were instructed to cross ZZZ1 VOR at or above 15;000 and cleared for the approach. We had programmed the avionics to fly the approach and descend on the approach to the glide slope intercept altitude. During the setup we neglected to arm the VNAV. After passing ZZZ1; descending; the aircraft did not level off at 14;000. We noticed the missed level off just before the controller alerted us to a probable altitude deviation. The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and returned to the appropriate altitude. The flight concluded uneventfully.I believe there were several factors that contributed to the event. Primarily; the flight crew was legally current but a little out of practice.  A full procedure instrument approach in real-time in mountainous terrain is different than currency and maintenance flights in non mountainous terrain. We have a very strong safety culture; attend recurrent training more frequently than required; and have extensive backgrounds including airline and corporate jet experience but are still susceptible to being 'rusty'.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: First Officer reported flight missed an altitude level off because they were a little rusty.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B MIA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: My student and I were on a discovery flight; we were on the west side of Key Biscayne about 1.5 miles west of the island flying south bound at 1;200 ft. MSL. We had been actively searching for traffic; and noticed another aircraft about 500 ft. lower than our altitude flying south bound as well. However; that aircraft then made a climbing 180 degree turn; then flying directly towards us; my student advised me that the aircraft was getting closer and continued climbing in our direction. I did not have visual of the aircraft and for a moment my student also lost sight of the aircraft. At that moment I then decided to take evasive action and immediately began to climb to stay safe and to evade a near miss or a mid air collision. When my student caught sight of the aircraft again it was flying west bound in a direction that put him right below us. I was able to finally see the aircraft flying west bound about 200 to 300 ft. below us and continuing to fly away from us. At that moment I leveled off the aircraft to notice that I had violated the MIA class B airspace that starts at 1;500 ft. MSL . I'm not sure if we climbed up to 1;700 ft. MSL but I do know that I had climbed to at least 1;600 hft. I immediately descended below the MIA B airspace. As I acknowledge that I had violated the B airspace. This was not done on purpose; simply done to maintain the safety of the flight and evade another aircraft.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported violating Class B airspace after evading an NMAC.