elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In flight; the A asked myself and the B Flight Attendant to come to the forward part of the plane to verify a strange odor. Both myself and B Flight Attendant went forward and smelled an odor that smelled like body odor or smelly socks. The A Flight Attendant had notified the pilots of the odor. We prepared the cabin for landing in ZZZ and before taking our jump seats; I realized the smell was noticeable around the exit rows. During takeoff and landing I noticed that I felt lightheaded.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported a 'dirty socks' odor in passenger cabin as well as experiencing lightheadedness during flight.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
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 As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Performed engine run-up with engine indications within limits. Took off on runway XX at ZZZ. Noted low fuel pressure but still within limits during takeoff roll; aircraft had been sent to maintenance about that issue in the recent past but maintenance could not replicate the problem. During initial climb fuel pressure still on the lower limit. At 600 ft. MSL the engine started to run rough. Pilot in Command tried to troubleshoot the problem by changing the fuel tanks; verifying the electric fuel pump was on; turning carburetor heat on; and setting the mixture to the full rich position. Revolutions per Minute decreased and PIC (Pilot in Command) noted fuel pressure was on the lower limit. Aircraft started to lose altitude and because of proximity to the ground; PIC decided to turn back to the airport; as it was briefed during the Takeoff Briefing. PIC determined that entering a right traffic pattern for runway XX at ZZZ was not possible due to low altitude and partial loss of power. PIC [requested priority handling] due to power loss and advised ATC of intentions to land on runway XYL and established a final for runway XYL. Landing clearance on runway XYL was received from ATC; and landed safely on runway XYL. Engine still ran rough even on the ground; and fuel pressure always remained on the low limit. After shutdown; maintenance inspected the engine and pointed out that the fuel pump was not operating; leading to the suspicion that it was the probable cause of the problem. Will not accept abnormal engine indications in the future; even if they are within the established limits; and will take a few more moments to assess and troubleshoot the situation to decide the best course of action.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported engine roughness shortly after takeoff.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The use of wireless headsets exposes ramp employees to COVID-19 exposure. How can we be 100% certain the coronavirus has been completely wiped off of the wireless headset? The eyes and mouth are obvious routes to potential infection. The use of wireless headset without a policy to ensure the device has been completely and properly sanitized before use may inadvertently spread COVID-19.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported the use of shared headsets exposes ramp employees to COVID-19.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Company MEL XXXXX-Cargo Door-Opening Electrical Control System-MEL REF # XXXXX MMEL. This deferral is used to defer the electrical system that activates the hydraulic opening/closing of cargo doors. When this deferral is used; it triggers additional [Company] MEL XXXXX-Yellow System Electric Pump-MEL REF # XXXXX (MMEL 29-XX-XX Rev 26) which mandates that the (fully functional) Y ELEC HYD pump switch be placed to OFF and remain so. I presume this was done out of a preponderance of caution for the ground personnel.My issue is with Company's mandatory trigger of XXXXX1 when XXXXX is used. There is a WARNING on A320 Flight Manual page 3.XX.X that states that if the aircraft starts to move with the parking brake handle ON; pilots are to attempt to use brake pedals to stop movement. If that doesn't work; the pilots are to press the Y ELEC PUMP switch to ON and try the brake pedals again. If we are on an aircraft that has used MEL XXXXX; we also have MEL XXXXX1 despite the fact that the pump is fully functional. Now the captain must use emergency authority to use the Y ELEC PUMP switch to deal with the UAM (Unintended Aircraft Movement). Just a reminder; UAMs are a big safety issue with us.The FAA MMEL 52-XX-XX for the electric cargo door system does NOT require that the yellow electric hydraulic pump be deferred as well. Company has effectively prioritized ground safety when the aircraft is static over flight safety when the aircraft is in motion. I submit that flight operations has the higher priority; and that we shouldn't be forced to use emergency authority to use a system that is fully functional and whose use is governed by a warning;'...when operating procedures; techniques; etc.; could result in personal injury or loss of life; if not carefully followed.'




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported concerns over a Minimum Equipment List procedure.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC cleared aircraft to turn right to SLVAA intersection for ILS PRM 27L to ATL. As aircraft commenced turn copilot requested a slow turn to avoid weather. Captain queried controller and controller denied request. Crew continued turn and adjusted speed for weather penetration. Crew continued and landed uneventfully.This is a continuing trend where ATL controllers fail to grant weather deviations around hazardous weather. Of all the ATC facilities in the US; Atlanta is the one that continues to push the envelope and compromise flight safety. Moreover ATL knows of this problem and continues to deny its existence.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported A80 controllers refuse to grant weather deviations around hazardous weather.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had a Controller In Charge relieving me at the time of the event. I came back and took the desk. I went up to the controller on sector 11R and noticed he had 4 aircraft showing two separate conflicts. The one I'm reporting on I thought had separation but after further review the controller did not have proper separation. This report is actually two separate events between two aircraft and 5 minutes apart.Aircraft X 33000 feet was 34NM behind Aircraft Y 34000 feet. Both aircrafts data blocks auto acquired on radar. Aircraft X requested 35000 feet. The controller climbed Aircraft X to 35000 feet without radar identifying one of the aircraft. 7110.65 allows radar separation in that area if just one aircraft is radar identified. Aircraft X was level at XA:48.At XA:51 Aircraft Y requested 35000 feet. The controller then climbed Aircraft Y to 35000 feet with Aircraft X 34 NM behind him at 35000 feet still with only 34 NM between aircraft. The controller said he was using 20 ATD. 20 ATD could have been used but was not set up properly. Neither aircraft was asked their distance to the next waypoint the controller figured I have 20 NM between them on radar so I can just apply 20 NM separation. Aircraft Y was level at 35000 feet at XA:54. Both aircraft were matched and they were radar identified just over an hour later on a different radar site. Separation between aircraft increased to 43 NM as they approached the second radar site.I would like to see a briefing item on this come down from the Airspace and Procedures office on the proper way to set up reduced separation like 20 ATD in ATOP (Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures).




Synopsis: ZAN Supervisor observed a Controller using incorrect oceanic reduced separation procedures to climb an aircraft to the same altitude as an aircraft it was following.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: ATR 42
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were preparing to start engine 2 in Hotel mode. At the time; the plane was at the parking spot in [airport] with the passenger board ramp attached and the Engine 1 prop strap installed. I was conducting IOE from the right seat; and we had reached 'Start Selector' on the hotel mode checklist. I briefly looked right to clear engine 2; and the trainee Captain had selected Start B on the overhead panel. I didn't see it happen; but somehow the starter for Engine 1 was engaged. I heard the starter running and looked up; noticed the starter on engine one; and immediately selected 'Off/Start Abort' to kill the starter. I think the starter was engaged for only a couple of seconds; and Nh on engine 1 never went above 9% or so. Fuel was never introduced to the engine. Following the event; I debriefed both the trainee Captain and the ground crew. Evidently when the starter was running one of the rampers was near the engine and was rushing to remove the prop strap. I advised the ramper that next time he should clear the engine area instead of rushing to remove the strap.I'm really not sure how the starter was engaged; as I didn't see it happen. As best I can tell it was purely an accident; i.e. the starter button was accidentally bumped.




Synopsis: ATR 42 Check Airman reported that examinee engaged the starter on the incorrect engine during engine start sequence.
Date: 201304
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-30 Twin Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I] used Foreflight to check weather before flight from ABQ to BVU. I saw an AIRMET for turbulence but other than that there were no AIRMETs. Radar looked pretty clear with a few scattered showers. I had an IFR [flight plan] on file but I was unable to use it due to freezing level being low. After calling Flight Service for some information we heard on the radio an airplane heading north so we decided to follow him; hopefully around the weather. The Controller seemed very helpful calling us with information. When we heard the aircraft going north begin to report low visibility we decided to turn around and head south due to the high terrain. Since I was just building multi-time and enjoying the view of the west we skirted along the edge of the storm looking for a hole big enough to head west. At this point the Controller got very angry with us. I tried to explain we were from the east just sight seeing VFR. I think it is very important people know that the radar on Foreflight does not show all precipitation. I do not know if this was because of the mountains but it was very inconvenient.

Callback: The weather information discussed was viewed during preflight and did not compare favorably with what was encountered in flight. This aircraft did not have XM or ADS-B capability.



Synopsis: PA30 pilot describes a VFR flight out of ABQ and some of the limitations of Nexrad as viewed on Foreflight.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
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: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On the FLATI3 arrival [Runway] 35R transition into DEN we received NAV ADS-B RPTG 1 and NAV ADS-B RPTG 2 FAULT message alerts descending thru 11;500 ft between FFFAT & DOGGG waypoints. We had been in and out of DEN multiple times this day and received similar alerts and assumed it was due to 5G. We reported the issue to DEN Approach and submitted a report.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported 5G interference on arrival descent characterized by multiple alert messages and flight deck display errors.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I inadvertently taxied off the taxiway after landing onto wet grass and slid down into a ditch of about a foot of water. No other plane was involved. There were no injuries and no aircraft damage.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported losing directional control after inadvertently taxiing off the paved surface that resulted in the aircraft sliding into a ditch.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RIC.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: TRACON RIC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We did a textbook Nav approach into Runway 20 at Richmond. Why am I submitting this report? Because we shouldn't have needed to!!! Runway 20 is less than 7;000 feet and it is a tight landing in VMC conditions. Last night and this morning it was rain; heavy rain with surface winds that are gusty. Yes; we checked runway performance. Yes it was legal. Yes we had IAD as an alternate and were committed to one approach and if we miss go straight to IAD. But why are we persisting in operating into RIC in conditions that are high risk? Get the long runway open or stop sending jets to land in IMC. VMC day only operations until the long runway is open again. Just because we got it done and did so legally and accomplished all rechecks of the landing data does not mean Richmond is a good airport to dispatch to in weather at the present time. There are no irregular Ops to report no damage illness or injury... But this was definitely not just another day at the office. This required everything to be spot on; crew still rested; airplane systems working right and the rain not increasing - as it has this morning- to make the operation succeed. I understand we need to move customers to their destinations but lets do so using appropriately sized facilities.




Synopsis: A319 Captain laments the closure of Runway 16/34 at RIC for construction; requiring the use of 6;600 foot Runway 20/2 under all circumstances.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: System Monitor: Indicating and Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X had maintenance for Master Warning (Red) Light Illumination in flight/unable to reset. It was signed off by Maintenance and aircraft was 'up.' Normal preflight and start on GPU due to batteries at 24.4 Volts and sitting for 4 days. Aural Warning was discovered 'Inhibit' on preflight and was selected to 'on' prior to start. Normal start; taxi; and takeoff from ZZZ1. We were repositioning under Part 91 for a Part 91K flight. Upon reaching cruise (FL210) after approximately 20 minutes; both Master Warning (Red) Lights Illuminated. There were no 'Triple Chime;' 'Voice Callouts;' or associated CAS Message(s). Attempted unsuccessfully to contact Dispatch via AirText. Contacted Miami Center to pass we had maintenance issue inflight and requested they call Dispatch (I provided number) and have Dispatch/Maintenance contact us. Dispatch made contact. We passed pertinent info. They instructed us to divert to ZZZ2 for Maintenance. Contacted Center and stated that we would need to divert for Maintenance to ZZZ2. Center subsequently provided new clearance/routing to ZZZ2. We continued to ZZZ2 without further incident(s) and subsequently landed/taxied in without further incident. Contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control upon shutdown. Crew did not declare emergency or urgent need to divert. Captain went through PC12 QRH and POH to see if there was any amplifying info for situation. None found.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reported that a Master Caution warning resulted in a diversion.