elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our aircraft had a very strong dirty sock smell on takeoff and then again on landing. I had stomach cramps and was dizzy and nauseated. Our C Flight Attendant was very dizzy during our service. After landing; all flight attendants were experiencing similar symptoms. Metal taste in mouth; tingling lips; dizzy; fatigue; nausea; disoriented. Cause: Air quality




Synopsis: A B737-800 Flight Attendant reported that another Flight Attendant detected a strong dirty socks odor and the experienced stomach cramps; dizziness and nauseated along with a metallic taste; tingling lips; and fatigue.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAS
Aircraft component: Taxiing Light
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When we made our initial call to Grnd Cntl for taxi clearance; we were given 'Taxi to 1R via Charlie; Charlie 2; Bravo; Delta; Cross 25R'. The First Officer and I briefly reviewed the instructions and began to taxi. Exiting the ramp I was initially watching the wing walkers for [another departure] as they were waiting for us to pass so they could push back. Continuing to taxi; I noticed many construction barricades ahead of us as well as to our left and the area was very dark which was complicated by our runway turn off light being inop. I made the right turn onto the taxiway which we thought was Charlie but was told by ATC that the taxiway we were on was Quebec. I then made the left turn on C1 to join taxiway C. At no time was there any traffic conflict. The rest of the taxi to runway 1R was uneventful. The lighting and signage is very poor in this area and all of the barricades just added to the confusion. Our right runway turnoff light being inop just added to the poor lighting since we were turning right out of the ramp area.


Second narrative: I became distracted and failed to backup the Capt during taxi in poor taxi conditions bad signage; poorly lit. Resulting in a wrong turn down a non cleared taxiway.


Synopsis: When departing the cargo ramp at LAS an air carrier jet turned right on Taxiway Q vice C as cleared. Poor signage and ramp lighting plus a deferred inoperative runway turnoff taxi light were cited as contributing factors.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a cross country flight with a commercial student. After being vectored; we were cleared to land on the right parallel runway at ZZZ. Another aircraft at the airport was cleared to land on the left runway. They apparently heard the right runway as they got uncomfortably close. They corrected to the left runway; but not before passing directly underneath us; with the difference in altitude showing only 200 ft. on my EFB (Electronic Flight Bag). Fortunately we were high; so we held our altitude until the other aircraft was able to turn away and landed without incident.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a NMAC on short final with an aircraft landing on the parallel runway.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting a training flight with a student pilot. I was teaching how to stay on glide path for landing; and how to correct when the airplane is high or low. This time we came in low; another aircraft noticed and mentioned to Tower that they thought we were too low; ZZZ Tower told the other aircraft 'They're fine'. Which we were; we had ample clearance over the obstacles at the end of Runway XXR approach. Had we gotten to an unsafe altitude I as acting PIC was ready to take the controls and execute a go-around maneuver.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that another Pilot reported their aircraft to ATC as being too low for safe flight. The tower controller stated that was not the case and the Instructor continued the approach to landing.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA; Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: IFR flight plan (ferry leg) from MIA-OPF for a live passenger leg from OPF. Normal takeoff from MIA enroute to OPF. Radar Vectors after take off. PIC called field in sight; SIC looks up and sees airport; acknowledges field in sight. SIC heads down getting ATIS; programming FMS; setting frequencies and courses. SIC announces field in sight per direction from PIC. Cleared visual approach to OPF from Miami Departure; switch to Tower frequency. Get airplane configured for landing; flaps; gear...Cleared for visual approach RWY 9L OPF from OPF tower. Make right hand base for landing; then when turning final; SIC looks up. Something doesn't seem right; at the same time Tower calls and tells us we are at the wrong airport. Turn right; climb to 2;000 feet and contact Miami Departure. Receive vectors to OPF; land without incident. ILS frequency for 9L at OPF set in navigation aid. Heavy work load for SIC in short time frame. PIC in too much of a rush. SIC-too much time inside. Future prevention: Request vectors for a 3 mile final to active runway.




Synopsis: Business jet First Officer as NFP; reports nearly landing at HWO after being cleared for the visual approach to OPF on a short flight from MIA.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival to aircraft for an early departure; a flight deck pre-flight was started and completed. The FO called to my attention to his window being slightly cracked open with the 'Red Circle' not visible. Maintenance was consulted and they verified that whatever overnight check they had completed did not include opening the FO's window. In addition; the windows had not been cleaned.Since this action is a well-known aircraft sabotage action; research was initiated by me to see who operated the aircraft into ORD the previous evening. The flight deck crew's names were 'stared' out [in the computer] and not available to me; a non-management pilot. However; because of this; it was apparent that the inbound flight was conducted by [a crew from the merger partner]. Sadly; this sabotage action has not been effectively dealt with by management for reasons that dumbfound me. This action if not caught by an alert pilot can and will lead to an aborted takeoff.Management has failed in the past to effectively deal with these type of actions. This question should be asked of management.




Synopsis: A321 Captain is informed by his First Officer that his sliding window was found ajar during preflight. The Captain believes that this is intentional sabotage by a pilot from their merger partner.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Control Valves
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just at rotation we got a master caution; with a right bleed trip off. We climbed out and completed all the normal checklists before getting out the QRG for the bleed trip off. We tried to reset as per the checklist; but after 10 seconds the trip light came on again. We called maintenance on the radio to see about returning to [departure airport]. They told us to try another reset by cycling the wing anti ice. We got another bleed trip of light. We had leveled at 22;000 feet while deciding to return or not. We were told to return and told ATC of our intention to return and were cleared to 3000 feet. Descending through 14;000 feet we got the altitude warning horn. We put on our O2 masks; and I turned off the autopilot to expedite our descent below 10;000 feet. The left pack was not pressurizing the aircraft. We were able to control the cabin in Manual and got the pressurization to hold but we were well below 10;000 feet at this time. We entered a holding pattern to get our landing weight below 146.3. On final we noticed the cabin altitude was at 35;000 feet with a differential of 4.0 psi when we were actually at 3;000 feet. We opened the outflow [valve] full open to depressurize the airplane. Landed normally with 30 knot winds and was unable to get the right engine in to reverse. Stopped with the autobrakes and left engine in reverse. Lots of weird events; not sure if they are related.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported multiple mechanical issues; including bleed trip and loss of cabin pressure; which led to the decision to return to departure airport.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Landed off field
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X called me near ZZZ1 airport near ZZZ. I radar Identified him and validated his mode C; but I do not recall if he had the ATIS. I cleared him into ZZZ Class B airspace along the route we normally assign. A little while later he said something like; 'Tower we are declaring mayday; we are going down.' I reissued the altimeter and asked what assistance he needed. I got no response and then a little while later he called and reported he was on the ground safely and that they were going to call their maintenance. I tried to get more information from him and ended up getting his location and that the people on board were okay. I got the impression from the pilot that the helicopter was in good enough shape that they may be able to fly it out. I filed this as an accident because I don't know for sure that it won't be classified that way and I don't know what condition the helicopter or the crew are actually in. Immediately after the pilots original call we started scanning to see if we could see him out the window. I made the situation known and we got the crash phone activated and then updated the airport authority fire command that the aircrew said they did not need assistance.




Synopsis: Tower describes a situation where he is talking to a helicopter and in lands off the airport in an emergency situation.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: De-Icing Fluid
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Logbook Entry; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: During preflight discovered TKS [de-ice] fluid was below minimum quantity required for dispatch. Checked deferrals and saw a deferral for the TKS system. Deferral was completed on DATE and due DATE1. However; the deferral listed restrictions were present. I checked the MEL for the deferral and it said that the affected equipment was not installed. I was unsure if this was a valid deferral and contacted our director of operations for clarification. Due to the early operating hours; there wasn't an immediate reply. I decided that the weather conditions present and forecast at the departure and destination and enroute structures would not require use of the TKS system for inflight icing. The weather was reported clear skies. After landing; I had received word from Operations that a contracted maintenance person was instructed by our Maintenance to defer the item. Our Maintenance was not aware that our MEL had the item listed as 'not installed'. Operations instructed me to stay parked while he worked with the FAA for immediate remedial action for the discrepancy in the MEL. I informed the director of operations that I had already completed the revenue flight for the morning and will stay parked until I hear back from him.




Synopsis: Pilot reported differences in MEL procedures listed for a TKS deicing system that was not installed on the aircraft.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Captain had been off for 6 months.  Flying First Officer new on aircraft 3 months. I was Relief Pilot #1 in corner seat.  Initial clearance to climb to 3;000 feet.  Then cleared to climb higher.  Around 4;000 feet after flaps up; plane was in a descent and ATC asked if we were going to climb?   FO put on autopilot; plane was still not climbing.  Power was nowhere near full power. The other Relief Pilot #2 talked FO into moving power up by hand (manually).  After quite some time we realized plane was in ALTITUDE hold.  Altitude knob pushed; plane entered VNAV climb mode.




Synopsis: Air carrier Relief Pilot reported the Captain and flying First Officer were not climbing as instructed by ATC due to inadvertently being in altitude hold during departure.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The airplane had MEL. Due to this MEL it was required that the airplane be fueled by over wing refueling (the single point could not be used). Dispatch notified the Operations at ZZZ1 while we were airborne. We also put a note in our in-range via ACARS report that the airplane had to be over wing refueled. When we parked; the fuel door opened almost immediately. The First Officer saw the fueler out his window. The First Officer then opened his window and got the fueler's attention and told him we cannot use the single point fueling. The fueler acknowledged the First Officer; but completely disregarded his instructions and continued to connect to the single point. I then went outside to tell the fueler that there was an MEL and to stop using the single point because it was unsafe and went against the MEL instructions. He then told me it was taking fuel and I didn't know what I was talking about. The fueler said he took a 'class' on the fueling system and knows what he is doing. I again tried to explain it and the fueler told me I need to go back to the cockpit because I don't know what I am talking about. I told him I need to talk to his supervisor and his name. All he would tell me is [the first name] and would not give me a last name or employee number. The Supervisor did show up. He was very courteous. I explained him the MEL and what was required. He said it was a miscommunication with Ops. He did not know the single point could not be used. He said he would have a discussion with the fueler about the incident and how he treated crew members. The major issue with this is the complete disregard by the fueler to listen to several crew members (both First Officer and Captain). He was extremely disrespectful and unwilling to listen to any kind of direction. He is handling large amount of jet fuel and should listen to a uniformed crew member when they tell him to stop fueling the airplane. There was passengers deplaning during this entire exchange.




Synopsis: E-175 Captain reported fueler at destination refused to follow flight crew's direct orders to stop single point refueling due to system being MEL'ed.