elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Ops Agent arrived in the cockpit just prior to push time and provided me with a NOTAC (Notice to Captain) to sign. I looked over the NOTAC. Everything looked appropriate; the correct flight number and city pair and date. What I failed to do was to call Dispatch and amend/add HAZMAT (hazardous material)/ COMAT (company material)-ONBOARD to the release. I realized my error upon arrival in ZZZ1; at which point I contacted my Dispatcher.




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported departure without without amended Release for late Comat Hazmat addition.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class C SNA; Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working the final for SNA and it was very busy. Aircraft are stepping and blocking on each other and it's making the frequency unmanageable. The problem is the SNA coordination line. This line goes directly into the Controller's ear and steps over the frequency. SNA Tower called while stepping on aircraft's check ins or read backs. This creates an unsafe situation because of the possibility to miss a read back or have to say again when the frequency is congested already.The original intent of the line was to be used for safety purposes only. Meaning they need approach to slow an aircraft to prevent a loss of separation. There's really no need for Tower to ever have to call the final so critically that it needs to distract the Controller from everything else. Please return this line to a shout line; so we can hear it on speaker and NOT block the pilots. Tower uses this line for unnecessary coordination and nothing related to a safety alert.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported a Tower called them repeatedly on a direct line instead of a line through the loudspeaker while it was busy causing them to miss aircraft transmissions.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Staffing; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival at [aircraft] for the flight prior to the abort; the aircraft had multiple engine control problems. The Auto Throttle Servos; Thrust Management System (TMS); Left Engine Thrust Reverser; and lower Engine Indications and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) display were all inoperative and summarily deferred. I refused the aircraft with all these interrelated deferrals because I was concerned about being required by the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) for the TMS deferral to set MAX thrust manually without 'full-up' EICAS engine instruments. Maintenance took their now standard position: defer and argue with the Captain rather than fix anything; regardless of the dangers involved. I called the Director to Flight Operations; and he agreed with me: something had to be fixed. I requested that it be the TMS but instead Maintenance magically found a lower EICAS screen and replaced it within 15 minutes; taking the path of least work once again. On the next attempted flight; these actions or lack thereof and the now standard deferrals rather than repairs were the direct cause of a high speed; high power; high altitude rejected takeoff.Reverse this extremely dangerous trend in our Maintenance culture which is being dictated and driven directly from the very top of [the company] of defer before repair; deceive before admission and argue before submission; before we have an accident; loss of aircraft or loss of life!




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported encountering resistance from Maintenance to properly repair airplane.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At 5000 MSL feet; approximately 10 miles west of SLI VOR; SoCal Approach assigned us a left turn to a heading of 050 degrees. The Captain initiated the turn with the autopilot engaged. Approximately 15-20 degrees into the left turn; SoCal Approach quickly cleared us back to our original heading. As the aircraft was in the right turn back to approximately 070 degrees; we received a resolution advisory (RA) directing a climb; as it appeared that an aircraft was in close proximity to us at approximately 500' below our assigned altitude. The captain immediately followed the RA direction and began to climb; and I promptly notified SoCal Approach that we were responding to a RA. At approximately 5500 MSL feet; the RA indicated a level off. A few seconds later; we received a subsequent RA directing another climb; however; it now it appeared that the aircraft was 300' directly beneath us. At approximately 5700' MSL; the RA indicated that we were clear of the conflict. The captain returned to the previously assigned altitude of 5000' MSL and I notified SoCal Approach accordingly. SoCal approach never made any mention of any traffic or the RA event. Also; we never saw the offending traffic during the RA event. We continued and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported a TCAS RA CLIMB during a near miss with an unidentified aircraft at about 5;500 feet near SLI .
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the Captain on Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1 on Date. Just about top of descent both the FAs (Flight Attendants) and both pilots heard a high pitched squealing sound and the FAs believed it was coming from Door R1 near the floor.The FAs also reported a vibration in the floor at the bottom of Door R1.The FAs never reported smelling anything.About a minute after the sound started the FO (First Officer) thought he might be smelling something coming from his gasper vent on the forward instrument panel. I couldn't initially smell anything but possibly a few minutes later might have briefly but if we did it was very brief and minor. The FO described it as a hot plastic type of smell but very faint and for just a couple of minutes.The squeal and vibration lasted about 10 minutes and the rest of the flight was uneventful.I filled out an odor form for MX (Maintenance); they said it would help them troubleshoot our issue and therefore I also am filing a report.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported experiencing a 'brief' fumes event at the top of descent. Simultaneously; the flight Attendants reported a temporary 'high pitch squeal' accompanied by a floor vibration.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 06C.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: Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; 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 As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb lost 400 rpm with full throttle. Airspeed began to decrease; I took flight controls from student. I returned to level flight; rpm increased slightly; then back down to 2100 with full throttle.Engine began to shake intensely and making unhealthy sounds. [I] proceeded direct for the numbers at [the nearest] airport. ATC Cleared me into Class B airspace.I began to trouble shoot issue per POH engine roughness and tested both mags with a 125 drop in each. I set myself for a high approach should my engine fail. Engine roughness continued throughout flight. Landed safely.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported landing safely after experiencing loss of power and engine vibrations.
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon boarding a passenger assigned seat XX1 was walking up the aisle with her mask pulled down. I asked her to cover her nose and mouth with her mask. She does not comply. She asks 'does this plane have oxygen? I can't wear this mask.'  I ask her if she is telling me she has a condition that requires oxygen during the flight then she needs to bring an approved Oxygen Canister on the flight. Meanwhile the passenger in [seat] YY1 sits down; mask below nose; and will not comply with many requests from me to pull her mask to cover her nose. I call the Captain to have him contact a Supervisor to remove these passengers and to let him know the passenger who sat in ZZ1 was demanding that I administer oxygen. Now a young man is trying to sit in ZZ2. I ask if that is his assigned seat. He was assigned [seat] XX2 I ask him to sit in his assigned seat.  He complies. Then a passenger shows up in [seat] YY2. He gets inside my personal space and is belly to belly with me saying he doesn't like how I am talking to these passengers.  [Passenger in seat] ZZ1 is asking me what was I going to do. And I told them that I had called the Captain to get someone to take them off because everyone has to properly wear a mask. I was hemmed in by passenger [in seat] YY2. I finally got past him and went up front. At that point Paramedics came and took the passenger in [seat] ZZ1 off in an aisle chair.  The station manager finally shows up and I tell her removal for mask compliance of passenger in [seat] YY1 and passenger in [seat] YY2 [is necessary] for interference of crew member duties.  All said and done the whole party was removed from the flight.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported several passengers were removed from the flight because they would not comply with face mask policy and were interfering with cabin crew duties.
Date: 201510
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: APU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight crew APU Verification procedures should be in line with maintenance procedures.On the first leg of a PAC Qual the Flight plan listed MEL Item - APU CONTINUOUS OPERATION. We called Dispatch to verify that APU was to be shutdown and cold soaked then attempt restart. Dispatch confirmed that was the case. Since this would have to occur in ETOPS airspace I was not convinced we could do that while honoring the APU run requirement. At the aircraft the logbook did have a placard for APU verification. We both tried to look up the MEL but we could not find it. We asked the mechanic who performed the ETOPS check and he wasn't sure. I then looked up APU start verification in the FOM Maintenance chapter which seemed to indicate that APU shutdown was allowed for verification purposes. Please see the note which states 'an APU start verification is an exception to other verification of flight items; as it may be completed AFTER entering ETOPS....' During the flight we ran the APU per normal procedures then shut it down about 15 minutes past the critical point to allow for the 2 hour cold soak. We then restarted the APU just prior to descent then send a maintenance code to Maintenance for successful start. Upon arrival we were told to contact Maintenance. Maintenance informed me that the APU cannot be shutdown and that the correct procedure was to have a phone conference with Dispatch; Maintenance; and Captain before any verification flight.




Synopsis: An ETOPS B737 required an APU inflight verification which the crew thought included running the APU; shutting it down to colds soak; then starting it for landing. After landing; Maintenance said no inflight shutdowns were allowed.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower 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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll no 2 ENG EGT was just below limitation. At rotation EGT exceeded limitation. EGT temperature was 975 Celsius. Requested priority handling. Continued departure and cleanup. Performed ECAM actions and follow ups. Returned to ZZZ runway XYC. Overweight landing at 193.4 lbs. Landed and stopped on the runway. Taxied to [the gate].The engine was written up with the same problem and priority 2 days earlier. Maintenance performed a engine run up and bore check but did not have the airplane flown. Flying the airplane would had been a more prudent and accurate test that would had most likely given the same result as we experienced. The change in the AOA during rotation is when the engine exceeded EGT temperature limitation.Put the aircraft in a more realistic and accurate situation that would produce actual information for maintenance to make a greater determination of airworthiness.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an air turn back after engine exhaust gas temperature exceeded limits.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: wind/swell; 10
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed at XA:30 PM from an inlet to a seaplane base where we were scheduled to clear customs at XC:45. Enroute the engine quit with no warning at about XC:40. The sounds suggested a restart attempt would not be advisable. The sea conditions were 2.5 to 4.0 feet. The landing into the wind; while rough was uneventful. We were flying below class C airspace at 800 feet MSL monitoring the frequency. When the engine quit I called ATC and requested immediate assistance prior to our landing. I was not sure we would be able to remain upright based on the observed water conditions. Very fortunately the aircraft remained floating and withstood the rough swell conditions well. We were able to remain in radio communication with approach. They contacted local emergency response and vessel assist. They asked for assistance from two local pilots transiting the class C to circle and keep an eye on us. We appreciated their willingness to help!We put on life vests and sailed the aircraft using flaps; doors and the air rudder toward a low bank beach. We could see a large response team with flashing lights near the beach we were aiming at. I was on the phone with all of the potential response agencies. [I recently received a] membership gift of an auxiliary cell phone charger [that] came in super handy! Vessel assist was dispatched. The 4 to 8 foot swelly water conditions prevented vessel X assist from reaching us. Vessel Y assist reached us about XE:30 about a mile off shore. They did a fantastic job in adverse circumstances and conditions. Float planes tow very differently from boats. Sunset happened at XE:40. We opted to stay with the aircraft while it was towed to a marina 15 miles away.It can happen to you. My extensive experience with this particular aircraft never hinted to this outcome. Bring food; water; a good flashlight; more extra line and warm clothes. Fly at an altitude that allows for conditions; time and options. My habits will be forever changed.




Synopsis: The seaplane pilot experienced an engine failure near NUW; landed safely in rough water; and was towed to port.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Compressor Stator/Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Inspector
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I did a VSV [Variable Stator Vane] lube on Number 2 Engine of [an Airbus A319]. [We] performed the maintenance per task card using proper tooling and torque wrenches. Maintenance procedure was inspected by [an Inspector] and task was complied with. I was informed the next evening at home; that the engine stalled and that the motor required changing. I do not know all of the circumstances of what happened after my shift was completed; but believe that maintenance was properly performed by myself according to task card for VSV lube.


Second narrative: Performed VSV ring lube and bolt change; perform inspection of VSV ring and stage arms and fuel line in area. VSV was lube and pre lube and post lube torques recorded by Technician; now bolt was install and torqued; at this time inspection was completed and the rest of the job is left up to the technicians to close down the c-duct area and fan cowl. I hear[ed] from other technicians that the aircraft had [an] over temp at [an] out station and the VSV bolt was found in the c-duct area. Aircraft 2 Engine was borescoped; no damage was found and aircraft was ferry flight[ed] home.


Synopsis: A Mechanic and Istructor were informed the evening after they preformed a variable stator vane lubrication task the engine stalled and the motor had to be changed.