elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 36
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing gear retraction after takeoff nose gear unsafe light remained illuminated. IFR flight plan was canceled and a flyby of the Tower found both nose gear doors had remained open. The landing gear was selected to the down position and another flyby of the Tower was conducted. The Tower reported the landing gear appeared down however nose gear wheel and tire assembly was not in centered position (not parallel to centerline of aircraft) airborne communication with Maintenance and Lear Jet technical support requested two more landing gear cycles with subsequent Tower flybys; landing gear status remained unchanged from initial Tower report. An emergency was declared; when legal landing weight was achieved; aircraft was landed. Landing was uneventful other than a minor vibration under 60 KIAS. Aircraft was shutdown on runway about one foot south of centerline. The nose wheel tire was found to be approximately 80 degrees to aircraft centerline. Aircraft was towed to hangar where post flight inspection found no visible damage (other that flat spot on tire). There were no injuries in this event.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A LJ36 flight crew failed to receive positive gear retracted indications after takeoff. After multiple recycling and Tower flybys they elected to remain in the area to burn fuel to max landing weight and land. The landing was completed but the nose gear was cocked some 80 degrees from straight ahead. The aircraft was towed to the ramp.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Tower, NJ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I crossed Aircraft Y from RWY 22R at taxiway golf; and put Aircraft X in line up and wait. I observed Aircraft Y cross and come to a stop on taxiway B at which point he looked clear of the runway from my point of view and on the ASDEX. I still waited until I saw Aircraft Y moving ahead slightly; and overheard Ground Control issue instructions to taxi via Alpha. Then issued Aircraft X a takeoff clearance. Aircraft X took off and then advised me airborne that an aircraft wasn't clear of the runway.  The aircraft was clear of the runway from my point of view; and I issued a takeoff clearance after seeing him taxi up a little. I should have verified with Ground that he would not be held there for a prolonged period of time.


Second narrative: We were cleared onto hold Runway 22L at taxiway W. Aircraft Y was crossing 22L around mid-field. First Officer's takeoff. We were cleared to takeoff when Aircraft Y appeared to have crossed the runway. During takeoff roll (high speed regime prior to Vr) it became apparent that Aircraft Y had stopped after crossing the runway but with its tail not clear of the runway environment but not overhanging the runway itself. I advised the First Officer of the incursion and takeoff was continued. Passing behind Aircraft Y our aircraft attempted to veer to the right. We assume that Aircraft Y had increased its thrust to begin taxiing and our aircraft attempted to weathervane to the right as a result. The First Officer maintained proper track and rest of takeoff was uneventful. We advised EWR Tower after takeoff that Aircraft Y had not been clear of the runway. Had we been a light aircraft; or had there been other complicating issue there may have been more of an issue with aircraft control passing through Aircraft Y's engine thrust.


Synopsis: EWR Controller and an air carrier flight crew reported another air carrier's tail was not clear of the runway environment; resulting in a runway incursion and jet blast event.
Date: 201601
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending for the approach the Pilot Flying (PF) called for flaps 1; flaps; 2; and then flaps 3. All calls and selections were made within flap speed limit restrictions.Realizing we were too high; we requested a 360 turn so that we would have spacing for a descent to the runway. As we turned the indicated speed increased; causing a warning bell to sound on the flight deck. The PF pulled the nose of the aircraft up; the speed returned to normal; and we landed without further incident.We contacted contract maintenance when we landed he called [maintenance]. [Maintenance] told him to perform a check; which he did; and he determined that the airplane was fit to fly. We completed our [next] leg without further incident.Looking at the situation; I am actually surprised that our company doesn't have more Airbus cases of ASAPs due to reliance on automation. Our Airbus training encourages a heavy reliance on automation and focuses less on actually flying this plane. Being an aircraft that is relatively new in its design and handling features; it would benefit us all to focus more on flying the aircraft. I have flown with many other pilots who are hesitant to actually fly the plane instead of using the Auto Pilot (AP) in all phases of flight. It is a detriment to our profession to have training which encourages AP 'on' at 11;000 feet and 'off' at DA; MDA; etc.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported a flap overspeed on arrival; citing overreliance on automation as a contributing factor.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSPD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZSPD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: CS closed door 2 minutes prior to scheduled departure and pulled jetway. That was the last I saw or heard from CS for the rest of the day. Ground control advised we were number 15 for pushback. 1.5 hours later we were number 1. 2 hours later we were cleared to push. Start malfunction after pushback. We were directed to park at hardstand. Maintenance deferred problem item. As we approached the 4 hour limit we contacted Dispatch and were told to exceed the limit. Then they determined that the local authorities would not allow the aircraft back to the gate. This was relayed to us via Satcom through Dispatch. We proceeded to taxi and takeoff beyond the 4 hour flag tarmac limit.1) CS provided no service to passengers after initial boarding.2)There is no CS timeline since no action was taken.3)All announcements made to pax were by pilots or flight attendants. No means of deplaning was made available.4)Pax were not allowed the opportunity to deplane.5)Deplaning was not offered because dispatch guidance was to exceed the tarmac limit. Also we were parked at a hardstand away from the gate making deplaning a lengthy and cumbersome process.




Synopsis: B747 Captain experiences a lengthy departure delay exceeding 4 hours due to both ATC and aircraft equipment malfunction. Local authorities will not allow the aircraft back on the gate and the maximum flag tarmac delay is exceed prior to departing.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other manual gate start
ATC / advisory: Ramp PHL
Aircraft component: Engine Starting System
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our aircraft had an MEL requiring us to use the manual engine start procedure titled Start Valve Manual Operation. We were required by the MEL to maintain radio communications throughout the procedure. Maintenance was on the aircraft and I asked them if they were familiar with this procedure. They said they were. We got the airplane ready for departure and completed our before start checklist. We established radio communications with ground personnel who handed the headset over to the mechanic. He informed me he would use hand signals to communicate with another mechanic stationed by the engine to accomplish this procedure. I said OK and to standby for start. Before we completed our items for the procedure the mechanic opened the start valve and the engine began to spool up. I attempted several times to communicate to the mechanic to abort the start but he apparently walked away from the headset. We turned off the APU bleed to keep the engine from spooling. The mechanic then picked up the headset and said the engine failed to start. I told him that no further attempts would be made until he guaranteed me he would remain on the headset and follow my instructions. He complied and the second attempt; performed in the correct order; was successful. The flight continued uneventfully. Maintaining radio communications throughout the entire procedure and only performing tasks commanded by the Captain as directed by the procedure would have prevented this from happening.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Maintenance failed to remain in contact during a routine manual engine start.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Trash bin compartments were freshly treated when boarded; on a through flight. Immediately the fumes/odor permeated the aft galley area and remained strong for several more hours. Nasal passages and throat became immediately irritated; along with shallow breathing. Headaches developed; and increased fatigue-restless sleep anxiety increased causing panic attacks shortness of breath; rapid heartbeat; confusion. Suffered two toxic fume events in 2010 and 2011; on board aircraft and continue to experience ill health aggravated by air irritants. The use of pesticides and all potential irritants should only be used on equipment when there is sufficient time for fumes/odors to neutralize prior to being enclosed on an airplane with crew and passengers.




Synopsis: An A321 Flight Attendant reported nasal and throat irritation; headaches; fatigue; restless sleep; anxiety and panic attacks after exposure to toxic fumes of several types in aircraft cabins.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; MEL; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During our briefing; the Captain informed the Flight Attendant-D and me regarding seats 29DEF are MEL due to O2 latch. We asked if the seats are going to be blocked and he said no. The D again asked the Captain if the seats were going to be blocked. The O2 compartment had a single duct tape holding the latch. After the Captain called maintenance dispatch again he told us that seats were still able to be occupied. The Captain asked the D to brief the customers about the latch and that he will be flying under 25;000 feet. I asked the Captain what type of briefing should we give the customers and he informed us what maintenance told him. Before door closure Captain made an announcement over the PA regarding our flying altitude due to the O2 latch. Approximately two hours into the flight the O2 compartment latch failed and with the O2 mask were dangling along with the compartment door. Luckily no one got hurt by the door compartment. The B-Flight Attendant came up to me and asked for masking tape. I asked for what and she told me so they can further seal up the O2 compartment. When I went back with her most of the compartment was already taped up. After further taping up the compartment we talked to the Captain regarding the procedure. By this time people we getting out there phones taking pictures. The crew was extremely professional despite the situation. When the mechanic [at destination] got on board he examined the compartment and told us that the seats should have been tagged inoperable and that the seats were miscoded. Our return flight the seats were blocked. When the O2 latch failed the O2 masks were dangling. My sense of safety told me that the seats should have been blocked. However; I did not want to challenge the pilot or maintenance further because I trusted them implicitly on their judgment.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported being dispatched with the oxygen panel inoperative at an occupied seat row. After arrival; Maintenance said this was an error.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was given a descent to FL330. After switching the aircraft to sector XY I observed the datablock display altitudes below 330. Upon calling the Controller; they stated that they were unsure of what the aircraft was doing. Subsequently; I called sector YY that had previously approved a point out on the aircraft and received approval for control for lower. I believe the pilot gave me a good readback.I am unsure of whether I was wearing a mask at the time or not as activity in the area fluctuates; and social distancing cannot be maintained; my mask comes and goes. It is plausible that I was wearing a mask at the time.  Despite; what I felt was a good readback; I could foresee my words being muffled due to wearing a mask. Therefore; it is possible that a pilot could mishear what I said.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an altitude excursion and referenced wearing a mask may have muffled the transmission.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 2A9.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: CTAF 2A9
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Float plane at my 10 o'clock; not spotted until in immediate vicinity. Passed directly under me at about 100 feet. I was communicating on the traffic advisory frequency. No communication from other aircraft.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported an NMAC with a float plane in the vicinity of 2A9 airport.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E RJAA
ATC / advisory: Center RJJJ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On initial climb out from RJAA on Cupid 2; requested hi-speed climb below 10;000 feet from Departure Control.  Controller responded with what we thought was 'No speed restriction'. We queried controller to verify high-speed/no speed restriction.  Controller responded with 'OK; no speed restriction' and we acknowledged this clearance.  After being handed off to Tokyo Control; the controller asked about our speed.  We told him that we had been cleared to climb with 'No speed restrictions' by previous controller.  He came back on frequency a minute later saying that we had not been cleared for a high-speed climb.Understanding English language is a real problem from ramp; to ground; to tower; to inflight.  We were three experienced RJAA flyers and still had problem.


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


Synopsis: Pilots departing RJAA report requesting a high speed climb below 10;000 feet. The request was approved by Departure Control. The next Controller asks about the aircrafts speed and the crew tells them that they were approved for a no speed restriction climb. The Controller responds that they had not been approved for the high speed climb.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Both crewmembers noticed a slightly heavier than normal vibration from the landing gear on takeoff; but not enough for any concern. No EICAS warnings observed in the cockpit; and all en route operations were normal. Take Off Gross Weight (TOGW) 380; flap setting 6 degrees. Landing Gear Weight (LGW) was 327; flaps 35 degrees. Only a very slight vibration was noted on landing; roll out and taxi into the ramp was normal. On block in the maintenance personnel informed us the number 6 tire was blown; there was tread separation and damage to the left inboard flap section.


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


Synopsis: A DC10 crew noticed a very slight vibration after landing and were notified by Maintenance that the number 6 tire was blown which caused damaged to the left inboard flap.