elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the D Flight Attendant. My jumpseat is 1D. Both 1A & 1C were occupied. There was also a pet at their feet. The passenger in 1C would not wear a mask. He was coughing. I politely offered him one of our disposable masks but he refused. All other rows in FC had 2 people in each row; so we could not move him and his pet to another seat. For future reference I am wondering if 1C is occupied and the person won't wear a mask could I as the D FA occupy 1F so they don't cough on me again?




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger seated next to her was coughing and not wearing a mask. Flight attendant posed the question as to whether or not she could move to other non-assigned seats.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ALO.TRACON, IA
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ALO
ATC / advisory: TRACON ALO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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 Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: An aircraft squawking XXXX (the assigned code for Aircraft X) was seen north of our airspace boundary by the controller working position prior to my arrival. He terminated control of this tag as it was erroneously created; and informed me of this during the relief briefing; indicating that I would most likely need to RF [ARTS Force] the tag in the FDIO [Flight Data Input/Output] when the correct aircraft departed. [Approximately 25 minutes later] the aircraft called for his CLRNC [route clearance] and was issued this while in flight. As our FDIO reported that the aircraft was not my control I called Chicago Center OTM sector (C56) for a manual handoff. The controller on the other end of the line informed me that he had no information about the aircraft and that we would 'have to do something about it' and then hung up the line without accepting radar on the aircraft. As a result I had to quickly coordinate with DSM TRACON to effect a radar handoff to them so the plane could continue his flight; while delaying his climb to level off at 100; as well as calling ZMP sector 36 to attempt to have them DM [Departure Message] the aircraft and amend the flight plan so DSM could control the tag. They called back shortly to inform me that OTM had taken control of the aircraft and thus they were unable to edit his plan. The DSM controller confirmed this after I called to ask them about it.The problem was the beacon code assignment being shared between two separate host computers (ZMP; ZAU) and with our facility being between the two; this happens more often than anyone would prefer. Changing the way the computers communicate with one another seems like a bit of an undertaking for the agency but this is not the first or likely last occurrence of an incident like this. The controller refusing to take the handoff is another issue for which I feel a Chicago Center manager would have a more appropriate answer.




Synopsis: ALO Controller reported being unable to hand off an aircraft due to an erroneous beacon code between separate HOST computers.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-20 Pacer/PA-22 Tri-Pacer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Throttle linkage became disengaged causing engine to run full RPM. Then approached into my destination for a dead stick landing and rolled off runway. Mechanic repaired linkage.




Synopsis: A PA22 throttle linkage became disconnected inflight causing the engine to run at full RPM; so the pilot shut the engine down on short final for a dead stick landing. The linkage was repaired.
Date: 201407
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 25 minutes after takeoff; R generator went offline. While running checklist and prior to complying with checklist-directed disconnection of the R IDG; the L generator also went offline. The 2 generator failures occurred within minutes of each other. Continued to work ECL for R generator failure; and disconnected R IDG. L and R sides of electrical system load was then assumed by the APU. An initial reset on the L generator was successful. It only lasted maybe a minute. L generator drive shortly disconnected on its own. After collaboration with Dispatch; decision was made to declare an emergency and return. Had to dump fuel. A normal landing was made. Maintenance later informed me that both drives had contaminated fluid.




Synopsis: B777 Captain experiences a dual IDG failure 25 minutes after takeoff. With the APU supplying the electrical system fuel is dumped and the flight returns to the departure airport. Maintenance determines that contaminated fluid was the cause of both failures.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were given taxi to Runway 25R via bravo. As we taxied up to the full length 25R we were asked if we crossed taxiway foxtrot which I said yes and the tower controller came back saying we didn't get cleared to taxi full length. The flight continued normally after.Looking further into the taxi chart it does say we need tower clearance to cross foxtrot but the location of the description is above hangars and not in a good location for pilots unfamiliar with LAX operations.




Synopsis: A319 pilot reported that they did not hold short of Taxiway F while taxiing to Runway 25R at LAX.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HWD.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HWD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I taxied past the hold short line prior to the runway. Hold short line is well before the runway and I mistook the line as an ILS hold short line.




Synopsis: Bonanza pilot reports crossing the hold line for Runway 28L on Taxiway A; thinking it is an ILS hold line due to its distance from the runway.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were leaving 29;000 feet for 32;000 feet in IMC conditions. Engine and wing heat was on. We just did a pitot heat check a few minutes prior. As we were climbing we get an overspeed warning with the clacker going off and a hard buffet. I immediately disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle. I lowered the nose and added power. I knew there was no way we were overspeeding at that altitude and climbing. I said 'I'm initiating stall recovery procedures.' As we got through the first stall I went through a secondary stall which I knew was coming. Upon getting through the secondary stall I continued descent and prepared the cabin for emergency landing. I had no reliable airspeed indicator working. Even the standby indicator did not look normal or match the feel of the plane. I immediately asked for a chase plane to help with airspeed. They tried to get [another] flight to me. He could not get to me as I was rapidly descending. At 14;000 feet all three airspeeds came back and paired up. We still did not trust them; but they acted normal. Made an emergency landing; which was uneventful.


Second narrative: After deviating around weather for most of the flight in IMC; ATC instructed a climb from FL290 to FL320. During the climb both CA (Captain) and FO (First Officer) airspeed indicators increased from 300 KIAS to 350 KIAS. The overspeed warning and clacker sounded during level off and shortly after a low speed buffet developed. The CA immediately turned off the autopilot and autothrottles and began a descent. We [coordinated with ATC] and were given FL260 initially. During the descent both airspeed indicators decreased. We diverted to [a nearby alternate] continuing the descent. Both airspeed indicators got as low as 200 KIAS. At 14;000 feet both airspeed indicators appeared to correct and agree with the standby airspeed indicator. All pitot heat sensors showed current before and after the event. The approach and landing were uneventful.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported diverting after experiencing unreliable airspeed readings during climb.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through FL320; a large spread out crack developed on the Captain's forward windshield. We notified ATC of the crack and that we were maintaining cabin pressure. We declared an emergency and requested a descent to 10;000 feet and a return to our departure airport. We ran the window damage checklist in the QRH. It was the Captain's leg but; because the crack was on his side; he elected to have me perform the landing. The Captain handled the communications with the flight attendants; the Company; and the passengers. I flew the airplane and handled ATC comminications. We set up for the ILS XXR in ZZZ and performed a normal approach and landing. We were met by emergency vehicles; but we did not require assistance.


Second narrative: Climbing through FL320 the outer pane of the Captain's front windshield instantaneously shattered.The Captain coordinated with ATC; Maintenance Control; local Operations and our flight attendants and passengers.


Synopsis: The flight crew of a B757-200 declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport after the Captain's windshield shattered climbing through FL320.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were level at 36;000 feet. and deviating for thunderstorms approaching the RNAV arrival and the First Officer noticed dirty sock smell. No change in power setting was noted and both packs were being fed by its respective engine. I called the flight attendants and wanting not to prompt them asked if everything was okay. The A Flight Attendant immediately responded that it smelled like 'dank foot.' I also began smelling dirty sock at this point. We donned our Oxygen masks and after confirming no smoke or sign of fire was present ran the 'Elimination of odors in the cockpit/cabin' procedure in [flight manual]. The flight attendants indicated that they first smelled the dirty sock smell in the aft cabin. Per the procedure we turned off Pack 2 and waited 5 minutes. The smell dissipated both in the cockpit and in the cabin.We decided to continue to destination. At the top of descent with a power reduction to flight idle a faint dirty sock smell returned. We again donned our oxygen masks. Since we previously confirmed that pack 2 was causing a dirty sock smell we chose not to attempt to cycle Pack 2 on and Pack 1 off. The flight attendants also stated that there was a dirty sock smell in the cabin. Due to our proximity to our destination we continued our descent and landing as planned. I took off my oxygen mask on the approach at approximately 1;000 feet. to facilitate a better sight picture for landing. At that time I again smelled strong dirty sock smell. After landing we turned off Pack 1 and monitored cabin temperatures. At the gate and after engine shutdown I opened the cockpit window. Neither the First Officer nor I experienced any symptoms. One flight attendant reported 'tingling' in their throat. No passengers reported symptoms or requested medical attention. A detailed logbook entry was made and the cabin smoke/fumes form was completed.




Synopsis: A320 pilot reported 'dirty sock smell' detected by First Officer in the cockpit and Flight Attendants in the cabin.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AZO.Airport, MI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D AZO
ATC / advisory: Tower AZO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X on a visual approach to RWY 35 went around due to a landing gear issue.  Aircraft asked to go hold somewhere while he sorted out his landing gear issue.  I told Aircraft to make left traffic and maintain VFR.  Weather conditions were such that I could easily provide visual separation between Aircraft X and any other arriving or departing traffic.  I had Aircraft make a right 360 on the downwind to separate him from an arriving aircraft.  The other arrival landed.  Aircraft called ready to come back and land after he got 3 green lights on his landing gear; but advised he wanted the emergency vehicles standing by.  I had already called an Alert II and had the rescue trucks on the field at this point.  Aircraft landed safely.  In hindsight; I think I made a mistake by putting Aircraft in my local pattern and telling him to maintain VFR.  If I had been thinking clearly; I would have remembered that an IFR flight plan cannot be arbitrarily canceled by a controller.  I know that the IFR flight plan can only be cancelled by the pilot in the air or at uncontrolled fields on the ground.  At controlled fields I know that an IFR flight plan is considered cancelled when the aircraft lands.  This was an unexpected go around; not an IFR inbound requesting pattern work or a VFR aircraft with gear issues.  Maybe I made the right choice by keeping Aircraft close to the tower so I could see his gear; but I think I was wrong to tell Aircraft to maintain VFR.   I am requesting a reference for me to study and retrain myself on so I can be exactly sure when an IFR flight plan can be cancelled in the future.  I have seen landing gear emergencies numerous times in my career but I have never seen any specific Computer Based Instruction (CBI)s or training videos on this specific type of emergency.  I think a CBI or video that covers this issue would be helpful.




Synopsis: An AZO Tower Controller tells an aircraft to maintain VFR on the go-around due to a gear problem. The Controller is confused after the aircraft lands in that he told the aircraft to maintain VFR and cancelled his IFR clearance.
Date: 201506
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON JAX; Tower MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Unforeseen storms at destination airport caused a diversion that lead to a low fuel emergency.We were operating a flight to JAX; on taxi out numerous aircraft were receiving reroutes; as many of the southerly routes were closed. We received a reroute to the north of Dulles; after entering the new flight plan we showed 3.0 over the destination and sent dispatch a message with our reroute. There was no alternate required and the TAF showed VFR conditions with a possibility of typical FL isolated thunderstorms (TS) on our arrival so both the captain and I were comfortable with this amount of fuel. The departure and first phases of flight were unremarkable. We made some minor deviations along the coast of the Carolina's and showed 2.7 over our destination. We confirmed with dispatch and they said our route looked good going into JAX.We knew there was isolated TS activity in the northern FL region so we remained as high as long as ATC would allow. We were also checking our possible diversion airport north of JAX which all had extreme storms. When we checked on with JAX Approach; they informed us that there was a cell directly over the field and numerous microburst alerts some in excess of 80 knots. The Tower said that the cell was moving extremely slowly with little to no ground track. We sent dispatch a message and looked at our closest alternates of SAV and MCO. SAV was +TSRA and MCO was clear VFR. We also looked into SGJ as well as SFB. Both airports showed thunderstorms in the area; and we did not have charts for these airports. Our FMS showed 1.2 fuel remaining at MCO. Taking into account the weather at all our other options we diverted to MCO and declared [minimum] fuel. We touched down in MCO with 1.2 FOB and proceeded to the gate without further incident.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew arrived at their destination to find a slow moving thunderstorm over the field. They consulted with Dispatch; diverted and landed with emergency fuel level on board.