elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Approximately five minutes before this incident the Captain called the flight attendants and told them to clean up early; grab a seat and call when seated because we would be getting some moderate turbulence on the descent fairly soon. I; the First Officer; had the passengers be seated and mentioned about the turbulence we would soon encounter. Approximately four minutes later with about one minute prior to entering the clouds (since we had not received confirmation from the flight attendants that they were indeed seated) the Captain directed them twice to take their seats on the PA. On descent; passing FL290; we entered the clouds and encountered moderate turbulence.The Captain called to check on them and the passengers and they told him that two flight attendants were seated in the aft galley; but the third flight attendant was standing in the aft galley and rode out the turbulence standing up. The ride was still bumpy and the Captain told him that we should encounter a few minutes of relatively smooth air so he could travel up the aisle to his seat. He did make it up to the front and belted in for the remaining of the flight. During the flight the Captain asked the flight attendants three times how they were; and if there were any injuries and they said one of the flight attendants had jammed a finger while in the galley. When he asked specifically about the male flight attendant who was not in a seat; he stated several times that he was fine.After the flight he said that his groin was now hurting and was going to call scheduling. There were two tray tables that needed to be repaired by Maintenance and several vomit areas that needed to be cleaned before departing again. We tried to get assistance from Operations about cleaning; but he told us it was the crew's responsibility to clean the aircraft and no assistance was going to be provided. The Captain promptly called the Chief Pilot on call and within five minutes we had the assistance we needed to clean the soiled areas and continue to move the mission.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a moderate turbulence encounter while on descent that injured a flight attendant and caused some passengers to get sick.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon my arrival into ZZZ; I attempted to lower my landing gear and noticed my front nose wheel did not extend fully in the mirror and I was not getting an indication light. I was on final and waited until a minute to see if it would eventually lock in place. I advised ZZZ tower that I needed to conduct a right 360 after they already issued me a clearance to land and informed them that I was having a gear issue. While conducting a 360 steep turn; I was able to get the front nose wheel to lock and a green indication light came on. After returning to final and tower issuing me another clearance to land; I reduced my throttles and set them for landing but noticed my RPM gauges were stuck and I was unable to see what my power settings were. I reduced my throttles to idle as I was approximately 300 yards away from Runway XX at which time my right engine failed. I was able to get the aircraft safely into ground effect and taxied to the local FBO. I am not sure what caused the engine failure; after talking with a mechanic he believes it is a fuel/mixture ratio; however; I do believe the gear issue is most likely low hydraulic pressure which needs to be addressed.




Synopsis: PA-23 Pilot reported landing gear extension issue and engine failure on short final.
Date: 201512
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight was allowed to enter a tornado watch area without dispatcher notifying in a timely manner. It wasn't until almost through the area when I realized they hadn't been notified of hazardous weather. This flight and 16 other flights were passed to me as part of the normal pass down. After the pass down I had turned my attention to completing the 6 or 8 releases still pending. I now had over 20 flight airborne throughout the entire U.S.; Canada and Mexico; weather was marginal throughout the Mississippi/Ohio valleys with convective tornado activity throughout. I had 14 pending departures during this time as well. Several flight had landed without me being able to see and analyze them as required in flight following responsibilities. 40 minutes after being handed this pass down I needed to begin the pass down process myself only this time I had to pass it to a dispatcher with less than 2 months experience who was still under training supervision. I feel that the 20 flights if not for the trainer would have been too overwhelming for a new employee. It was during this pass down of my flights that I realized I had lost situational awareness of several alternates due to weather developing faster than anticipated. The passdown dispatcher excepted this and I assume made the appropriate changes. This scenario plays out almost daily in dispatch and is in no way acceptable to me; I will be trying much harder at the end of my shift to improve; however this will never be enough to handle this total task saturation in the last hour of a difficult shift.Management's total lack of understanding of task saturation and organizational ability to develop a plan to alleviate this scenario. This was a policy change a few months ago to fix a problem; unfortunately it created more than it fixed.I will do the best I can to reorganize my priorities at the end of my shift and deal with this saturation.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported his workload was so high he allowed a flight under his supervision to enter a tornado watch area without notification.
Date: 202202
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arrival flight came in with pit 3 soaked with water. Class 9 [Hazmat] marked package base was also wet. After offload; lead ramp service employee notified immediate supervisor of the issue and potential Hazardous Materials spill. Scheduled local departure time of XA:10 was pushed back to XA:40. After updated departure time the crew was asked to speak with immediate Supervisor to determine condition of Hazmat package. Area Manager arrived and stated it was just water and gave a direct order for us to clean it up. Another ramp service employee voiced his concern in which Area Manager stated 'Are you refusing to do your job' in an aggressive manner. At that point; I contacted a lead from another gate who reiterated the fact that we cannot clean the pit of an aircraft if there is a potential Dangerous Goods spill and suggested that I get a Shop Steward. After following that direction and getting a Shop Steward; he informed the supervisors that were still on the gate that we cannot clean that aircraft and that a team of trained employees with proper PPE have to do the task. We were only given paper towels and Clorox wipes; nor are we trained to handle that task. The direct order issued by Area Manager is in direct violation of Safety Policies.


Second narrative: Class 9 Hazmat spill all over bags in forward pit 3.I call for Supervisor and then the Supervisor called for Assistant Manger on duty. Assistant Manager aggressively and menacingly demand I clean up spill. I choose to not clean up the spill due to no PPE and lessons stating that I should not be doing this. He then threaten my job if I did not clean up the spill.  directive is against company safety policy's and procedures.


Synopsis: Air Carrier ramp personnel reported refusing supervisor's order to clean up liquid on Class 9 Hazmat package. Ramp agent's refusal was based on company Hazmat cleanup policy which requires specific training to do so.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria 7ECA
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While doing stop and goes; directional control was lost and aircraft impacted a runway electrical hold short sign with the left tire; wheel and strut and ended up facing approximately 230 degrees. No injuries to student or instructor.Post examination revealed the tail wheel had about 5 inch of side to side sloppy travel while the rudder was held stationary. A tighter tail wheel connection may have provided better overall directional control.




Synopsis: Tailwheel flight instructor reported that the student lost control during landing that resulted in contact with a runway sign.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZTL had Aircraft X high and fast on the RNAV arrival trying to 'blow by' another aircraft; this caused Aircraft X to be high and fast over the arrival fixes as he tried to fight the plane down. ZTL put the plane in an unsafe situation and didn't coordinate any of it. They only called for a handoff 4000 ft above my airspace.Work issues out before the airspace boundary and read the letter of agreement.




Synopsis: CLT TRACON Controller reported that an inbound aircraft handed off from ZTL Center was too high and too fast to comply with crossing restrictions.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PGV.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G PGV
ATC / advisory: CTAF PGV
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Experienced significant interference on CTAF 122.800 from what is believed to be a local radio station to the point of distraction.  The interference forces the need to turn down the radio monitoring 122.800 to enable pilot and crew to monitor and communicate on other radios required for operations.  Additional aircraft operating in said area encountered a similar event. A cursory check of aircraft systems and radio were performed in an attempt to troubleshoot the issue. No aircraft or radio discrepancies were detected.




Synopsis: Pilot reported radio interference on PGV CTAF 122.8. Pilot reported a local radio station as the possible source.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
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: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was PF on this leg; first flight in 40 days.  During approach prep for LGA ILS 4; review of briefing strip indicated 'Autopilot Coupled approach not authorized.'  Review of other available approaches with similar 3.1 degree glideslopes and initial approach fixes have no restrictions.  Since weather was rain with low ceilings; the ILS was the approach with the best capability. Trying to hand-fly an ILS in bad weather didn't seem to be a viable option or the safest; and ceilings were low enough to require an ILS approach. I shot the approach with both APs engaged; monitored flight path compliance; and was able to take over visually around 400 feet AGL; landing in the first 1;200 feet of runway.  This breakout point is similar to the DH for the RNAV GPS to Runway 4; which is allowed to be coupled.  After returning home I inquired about why this restriction was listed; and what we are expected to do when bad weather requires approach to LGA Runway 4.  New to aircraft; had not flown in 40 days. Had not been in situation where a published ILS approach could not be used with an autopilot. 1. Provide a precision approach into LGA Runway 4 suitable for low ceiling/bad weather.2. Provide some insight into why the coupled ILS is not as safe as a hand-flown ILS along the exact same flight path.  3. Provide some insight into why the RNAV GPS 4 can be coupled and flies the same flight path.  (If the coupled ILS can only go down to 400-500 AGL; that seems like a more correct limitation than to completely limit AP use for an entire approach.)4. Make this a review item in the company pages and provide some guidance on how best to handle this.5. ATIS should not advertise ILS 4 as the active approach in bad weather when the approach is not authorized to be coupled. Should advertise 'ILS and RNAV Runway 4.'




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported concerns with the LGA ILS 4 approach identified as 'Autopilot Coupled approach not authorized.'
Date: 202012
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I am concerned about having to wear a mask at cruise altitude while a Flight Attendant is on the Flight Deck. I feel we are putting Flight Attendant mask concerns over safety of flight concerns. If we experience a Rapid Decompression at FL 390; time of useful consciousness is measured in single digit seconds. A Rapid Decompression would be stressful; disconcerting and confusing. Now we would also have to waste a precious second or two to remove the cloth mask. If it is OK for the pilots to be mask-less in the cockpit when no Flight Attendant is present; why put the safety of the flight at risk solely for the comfort of flight attendants?




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported the requirement of wearing a face mask with a Flight Attendant on the Flight Deck is a safety concern; especially if there is an event such as a rapid decompression.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a visual approach to Runway 28L in SFO; we received an RA. The airport was conducting simultaneous close parallel visual approaches to the 28s. We had the plane in sight on the parallel runway. They were slightly behind us and had been told to slow to follow us. The conflicting aircraft appeared to be established on the 28R LOC and was descending near the same rate and altitude as us. As we descended through about 1;100 FT; we received an RA to descend. We complied and ended up descending below 1;000 FT while below the glideslope. We saw the aircraft to our right and were clear of conflict and able to return to the glide slope by approximately 900 FT. We continued the approach and landed.




Synopsis: An ERJ-170 pilot on a visual to SFO 28L reported taking TCAS RA evasive action from an aircraft on 28R which did not slow as directed by ATC.
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the safety video was finished; #3 (me); #4; & #2 were walking through the cabin doing our safety compliance checks. The minute we all got in the aisle; we smelled a horrific dirty sock smell that reminded us of a dirty boy's locker room. Passengers were stopping us asking what that awful smell is. I #3 ran up front & called the cockpit. We eventually went back to the gate. Everyone deplaned including all 4 of us F/A's & the cockpit. Maintenance was waiting for us & they took the plane out of service. We 4 F/As went to the Emergency Room here in ZZZ to be tested & checked out for poisoning since it definitely was confirmed it was a FUME event!




Synopsis: B737-800 Flight Attendants reported a ground gate return due to a fume event during taxi.