elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon arrival at the aircraft we needed to be de-iced but had heavy snow delaying de-icing. The aircraft was loaded somewhat late and had dry ice loaded on board in the amount of 14;000 LBS. Shortly after arriving at the aircraft we received the normal ACARS alert to keep air conditioning on which was already being complied with. At about mid morning the heavy snow went from heavy to moderate allowing us to launch. A short time later the deice team asked us to prepare aircraft for deicing to get a start with Type 1. We then ran the checklist for deicing and the packs were turned off. It was taking an unusually long time to deice due to one of the trucks breaking down and [being] replaced; the de-icing took about 1 hour when all was said and done. I started to develop symptoms of shortness of breath about 30 minutes into the deicing process. I did not verbalize any of my symptoms because I thought it was just me either being tired or fatigued. About 45 minutes after the start of de-icing the Mechanic asked if we could close the outflow valve to prevent spray ingestion; which we did as air conditioning was still packs off. De-icing was completed about one hour after it was commenced and we started engine 3. At this time the Captain noticed I was having difficulty breathing and asked if I was OK. I responded abnormally so the Captain turned to the jumpseater to ask if he was OK and he was on oxygen and said no. It was at that time that the Captain made the decision to shut down the aircraft and quickly opened the windows and cabin doors and told Maintenance something was up and told him to get steps up to the aircraft while fresh air came in from the open windows and doors. I started to feel better almost immediately after the windows were opened and we all started feeling better quickly. It took about 3 minutes for steps and we were outside and a Manager was there to take us to a Medical Center for check ups; diagnosed with asphyxia.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A MD-11 crew experienced asphyxia during an extended predeparture de-icing with both packs OFF; the outflow valve closed and 14;000 LBS of dry ice on board.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CRP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CRP; Class D NGP
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We are a STARs facility that runs the bulk of our approaches to NGP; a NAVY base. They have our radar feed. They have STARs equipment; but not our STARs feed. Because of this; we are forced to make manual inbound and handoff calls for every approach. This takes the radar controller's focus and attention away from the radar scope and forces him or her to make a landline communication that would be completely unnecessary if our STARs equipment talked to the NAVY STARs. This is a huge safety risk. Our facility is constantly training new controllers and new pilots; which is the NAVY's mission; to train new pilots. Hear back/Read back is a huge issue here with the brand new; green pilots and it is only exponentially compounded with the added landline communications.I have been told over and over that this is just a money issue. That is an unacceptable answer for the amount of safety that is at risk. We are talking chump change to get these two systems to talk to each other. This needs to happen as soon as possible. It has been a problem for years and controllers have just had to learn to deal with it. Get the FAA STARs to talk to the NAVY STARs and then we can develop procedures and scratchpad entries to ensure a safe operation.




Synopsis: CRP Controller reports of two facilities that have the same equipment but do not communicate with each other. Controllers have to make manual handoffs.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I did not follow the procedure of verifying the count when the discrepancy was so large. Though it seems like a large difference; based on our high cancellation rate due to the coronavirus I honestly thought we had 11 passengers on the airplane. My first officer recognized the problem; reported the problem and we took corrective action using our manuals before we landed. We most certainly took off with incorrect performance numbers likely off by as much as 14;000 lbs.We loaded up Aircraft X; ZZZ to ZZZ1. Our dispatch paperwork indicated we were expecting XX passengers. Our final load sheet came down with 11 passengers. We were unable to get numbers based on needing our ZFW to be reset. We contacted dispatch; but had a bad connection. We were able through multiple attempts to relay the information that we had 11 passengers and a new ZFW of 96.6. We got our numbers and successfully departed ZZZ. In route we took a lav break. When the First Officer went to the lav; he came back and reported there were far more than 11 passengers; probably much closer to the XX that was on our release. When I went to lav I confirmed that estimate to be accurate. I determined that our actual landing weight was likely about 14;000 pounds heavier than we had planned and went to the com to get more accurate landing speeds and landing distance. We landed safely and uneventfully.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported departing with a passenger count discrepancy resulting in a weight and balance issue.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed on a PA-44 training flight with a student. We did two laps in the pattern working on landings. After which we departed and headed towards the NE practice area. At approximately 2;500 feet I noticed the engine was running extremely roughly. Suspecting the mixture was too rich I pulled the mixture back (less than 1 cm) the engine failed at that point. I re-added the mixture but noticed no change in power. I ran the engine out and troubleshoot checklists to no avail. I turned the aircraft towards ZZZ and contacted Tower to let them know I was coming in. Tower [acknowledged the situation]; as I made a (fairly) straightforward approach and landing single engine. After landing the left engine was still running so I was able to taxi back to parking safely with no damage or injuries.




Synopsis: PA-44 instructor pilot reported an engine failure led to a single engine approach and landing.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HQZ.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF HQZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I remembered that HQZ runway magnetic directions has been changed couple years ago. New runway is 18-36 in use; however; I have seen the old runway sign before takeoff today which was 35.

Callback: The reporter stated a Runway 35 sign is located adjacent to the taxiway just prior to entering the current Runway 36. The reporter did not know if the Runway 18 signage currently indicates 17.



Synopsis: A pilot noted that HQZ Runway 36 was changed from 35 several years ago; however signage near the runway threshold still exists identifying it as Runway 35.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying the standard CHNNEL 2 Departure out of SNA; just after thrust cutback; approaching 1100' MSL; we received an RA climb command from a target at one o'clock and indicating 200' below. We were reducing pitch from the 20 degree climb to 14 degrees; power was at 80.7 per the OPC; and airspeed approximately 140 knots.  I advanced the thrust levers to maximum to help with the climb at the low airspeed; high AOA. Target passed behind with 100' displayed on the TCAS. I informed Departure we had a near miss; but the aircraft was under our nose and not visible. He said he had targets in our vicinity and would look into it. Once clear of conflict; we resumed the departure. The rest of the flight was uneventful. Aircraft was later confirmed to be a GA Mooney.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported an NMAC with a general aviation aircraft while departing SNA on the CHANNEL2 SID.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
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: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We swapped into this aircraft. It had had two previous write-ups for the illumination of the engine driven LOW PRESSURE light on the B-system. The aircraft was originating in the evening due to the replacement of the engine driven hydraulic pump earlier that day. On initial climb (a little before FL 180); we also received the same LOW PRESSURE light. Our B-system quantity was at 96 at that time. We ran the QRH; which required us to turn off that pump. We continued; and elected to cruise at FL280; due to the QRH suggestion to remain in warmer temperature; in case of cavitation. Later; at cruise; our electric driven B-pump failed; and we noted that the quantity had gone to zero. We also received the FLT CONTL light; due to the yaw damper failure. The Captain was PF; so the autopilot remained engaged. We ran the QRH procedures for Hydraulic System-B Failure; and elected to divert since we were near [a suitable airport] and we were not sure that we weren't going to lose the A-system as well. ATC vectored us for a landing. We followed the QRH procedure to lower the flaps and landed uneventfully. After landing; we elected to leave the flaps in the 15 degree position; instead of electrically retracting them.Since the engine driven B-system pump had failed twice before and it failed a third time; the problem clearly had not been diagnosed or repaired properly. I hate to blame Maintenance; but after our engine driven pump failed on departure; we felt like we were 'test flying' the aircraft with passengers on board. The subsequent complete system loss after extensive hydraulic Maintenance seems suspect.




Synopsis: Dispatched in an aircraft that had just had the right engine driven pump replaced due to two previous system failures; the flight crew of a B737-700 nonetheless suffered yet another failure followed closely by a failure of the right electric pump. They diverted to the nearest suitable airport. The reporter expressed concern that; even after three write-ups and a replaced engine driven pump; Maintenance had apparently failed to properly diagnose and repair the system.
Date: 201403
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I used my iPad the hour prior to pick up at the hotel and it worked perfectly. On the van the relief pilot asked me some questions regarding items in the stored database. I used my iPad and the stored database in the van and it worked perfectly. However the Relief Pilot's the stored database would not open while we were in the van. We could not resolve the issue as there is no WI-FI available in [this airport's] Operations to address the problem. Once airborne in cruise I tried to open the stored database in my iPad to access my [Operations Manual]. After entering my password it kept giving me a message 'ERROR: COULD NOT FIND YOUR OFFLINE USER ACCOUNT ON THIS DEVICE. PLEASE TRY AGAIN WHEN YOU REGAIN A CONNECTION TO THE SERVER'. We were able to use the Captain's iPad for flight; but it was disconcerting not to have paper manuals as back-ups with two of us having iPads not allowing access to the stored database. Once home my iPad connected to WI-FI and once again began working properly and the stored database opened with no issues.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported problems trying to access stored iPad contents in-flight.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a small tail dragger. On approach to Runway 4; a very wide (150 FT) runway; I flared a little too high which resulted in a hard landing which collapsed the right landing gear and allowed the prop to strike. The large and wide runway (much bigger than my recent experience) gave me the impression I was lower than I was; resulting in the hard landing. For others it would be helpful to double check altitude in this situation of tricky depth perception.




Synopsis: An experimental tail dragger aircraft pilot; used to a narrow runway; flared high and landed hard on a 150 FT wide runway because of a depth perception error. The landing collapsed the right gear and resulted in a propeller strike.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine 1 compressor stall ECAM accompanied by thrust loss and yaw passing through 10;000 feet MSL on climb out.  [Advised ATC] and returned to the departure airport.


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


Synopsis: At 10;000 feet on climbout; an A319 number one engine compressor stalled with the associated ECAM; thrust loss and yaw. The flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying. On approach to Runway XXR at ZZZ; after calling for the landing gear down and flaps 15; we noticed that we had three green and three red landing gear indications. The overhead panel showed three green indications. We were able to complete the QRH and Landing Checklist and determined that the landing gear was down and locked. We continued the approach with the intention of landing. At approximately 500 feet AGL; we received the oral warning 'TOO LOW GEAR.'I was no longer sure that the landing gear was down and locked.  I called for the go-around and executed the go-around procedure.  We decided to leave the landing gear down and cleaned the flaps up to 5 degrees.  The Captain was working the radios and informed ATC of the go-around.  ATC gave us a heading and cleared us to 2;000 feet. They asked for the reason of the go-around. The Captain informed them that we were having landing gear indication problems. The Captain then decided to request priority handling.We completed the QRH and were able to get three green indications without red indications. The Captain informed ATC we had solved the problem and could continue for another approach and landing.  ATC assigned us Runway XXL.  We set up the FMC; re-briefed the approach; completed all of the appropriate checklists; flew the approach; and landed uneventfully on Runway XXL.  We taxied to the gate; shut down the engines and completed the Shut Down Checklist. While at the gate we had realized that due to workload; we had forgotten to inform the flight attendants of the priority handling situation.To prevent this from happening again; we need to slow down; and complete all briefings to the Flight Attendants and Passenger cabin prior to landing. Just because we were able to solve the landing gear problem and workload was heavy; does not alleviate the duty to inform the Cabin Crew.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported a landing gear indication issue during approach resulting in a go-around.  The flight crew ran the QRH procedures; resolved the issues and landed safely on their second attempt.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing in ZZZ on Aircraft X with a cold soaked wing and full main fuel tanks; I asked the rampers to do an ice check. One of the rampers brought out the ladder; checked the wing; and then told me the wing was clean. From my vantage point by the L1 door I found this hard to believe as it looked liked frost extending along the entire length of the wing. I politely asked the Ramper to bring back the ladder so I could inspect the wing. After he brought back the ladder; I climbed the ladder and found obvious frost along the length of the wing. I told the Ramper what I saw and asked him if he would like to look at the wing again. He immediately got pissed off; refused to look at the wing; told me it was clean; declared 'we're going to agree to disagree but I'll deice you' and walked off. ZZZ deiced our aircraft without incident. Captains need to stand their ground and ensure deicing is completed when warranted.  Further; I have never experienced anything similar to this at (airline).




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported a ramp worker providing false assessment of wing icing.