elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Tower, GA
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The weather at the time of the event caused a lot of factors for controllers at ATCT tonight. The visibility was 1/4 SM; OVC 003 and wind fluctuating between 10008KTS - 110012KTS. The Command Center; [Company A] airlines and [Company B] operations decided we should turn the airport from an east configuration (in favor of the winds) to a west configuration to accommodate getting the aircraft back to ATL. This caused the pilots to land in low visibility weather with construction and a tailwind. Pilots also had to depart with an 8-12 knot tailwind on a shortened runway.Another situation; our SOP states if the weather is below 300 and/or visibility is less than 1 mile; you should not depart RWY 26L with aircraft on the VICTOR end around taxiway. There were numerous aircraft that departed with planes on the Victor taxiway.If the winds favor an operation; stay with the safest possible situation. Safety is a 10; or that's what the FAA likes to make us believe.Change the SOP weather requirements if it's deemed aircraft are safe to be on taxiway Victor when the visibility is low.




Synopsis: ATL Tower Controller questioned SOP requirements during weather operations at their facility.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 30 minutes after takeoff we received a level 3 forward lower cargo fire warning. Per Phase one procedures 'FLASHING DISCHARGE SWITCH PUSH' was accomplished. We were 80 miles south of ZZZ. We declared an emergency with Center and turned direct to ZZZ. We ran the emergency checklist for lower cargo fire. An ILS was flown to Runway 36C. We cleared the runway; stopped the jet; and had Crash Fire Rescue inspect the jet's forward exterior cargo area. They found no indication of fire. We then taxied to the ramp where CFR opened and inspected the lower forward cargo compartment. No fire indications were found.




Synopsis: In response to what turned out to be a false cargo fire warning the flight crew performed the associated checklists and procedures and diverted to a nearby airport. Inspections by CFR immediately after landing and at the ramp discovered no evidence of fire.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We flew Aircraft X from ZZZZ to ZZZZ1 to ZZZ. We operated with deferral 36-11-8-1-1a and 21-51-1-1. Under these conditions; the left AC pack should have been operated off. It wasn't! The flight should have not departed ZZZZ. The crew that was scheduled to fly Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1 noticed the discrepancy. The flight from ZZZ thru ZZZ1 to ZZZ was uneventful. I accept full responsibility for this event. I failed to take the proper time to review the MEL prior to the flights. After maintenance was performed on the aircraft; I reviewed the MEL items with mechanic in ZZZZ. My review of the MEL was obviously not thorough enough. I don't understand how I could have overlooked several of the items in the MEL; but I did. I should have been more proactive in including the First Officer in the decision making process. First Officer is an excellent pilot and this should not reflect poorly on him. I was very tired that day. This may have been a distraction. Considering everybody involved with this event; several people dropped the ball. Ultimately I am responsible.




Synopsis: Captain reported misreading multiple MEL's and departed an airport with a non airworthy aircraft.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were offloading mail out of the fwd cargo I noticed some boxes that had Lithium-Ion battery UN3481 labels and also a white label that said 'LITHIUM ION BATTERIES- FORBIDDEN FOR TRANSPORT ABOARD PASSENGER AIRCRAFT' There were at least 20 boxes that I could see. Some were individual boxes and some were within the white mesh like bags that USPS uses. [I identified] while offloading the mail. I saw many boxes with the Dangerous Goods label on them.This event occurred because the crew Chief and crew loading Aircraft X on [date] did nothing to stop this mail. I can see that the crew Chief who scanned the bags on this flight was [name]. I do not know if he was also in the fwd cargo area or if he had another crew load the mail. I told a Customer Service Manager. He asked for no information.  Mail went to the cargo facility to be given to the USPS. More training and knowledge of why this is so important for all of us to be aware of these hazards. With Lithium-Ion batteries becoming more and more popular I think this should be a reoccurring lesson in person class.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Lead Technician reported identifying Hazmat cargo labeled 'forbidden for transport aboard passenger aircraft' at destination arrival. Reporter suggested more Ramp personnel training is required.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JAN.Airport, MS
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
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: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We taxied into Gate XX after a rain shower passed over the field shortly before arrival. Both the First Officer and I were unable to see the lead-in line or J-line with all the exterior lighting illuminated. Those lines are either non existent; obliterated or no longer have reflective capabilities. Either way we were only able to get some semblance of alignment with aid of clear and directive marshalling. I was very uncomfortable taxing into the gate under these circumstances and believe it is a significant safety issue. The lead-in line along with the J-line associated with Gate XX needs to be repainted with paint containing some reflective properties. In addition more ramp lighting would certainly help the situation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported lead-in lines need repainting. Captain followed ground marshals signals.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Sundowner 23
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing back to the hangar at ZZZ after a training flight with a student. As we turned onto Taxiway H; I saw Pilot Y attempting to start his recently purchased BE23. It was parked at the tie downs and facing the X Hangars. I taxied past him and commenced to make a U Turn back to our hangar. As I was taxiing slowly in front of hangar X-E; I saw and heard the BE23 start up and rev up to very high RPM. I thought that was out of the ordinary. I then saw the plane start to come directly at us while picking up speed. Seeing Pilot Y's face; I could tell that he was not in control of his aircraft. I quickly increased throttle and was able to get out of his way as he impacted hangar X-E. I re-positioned my plane and shut down. We were not impacted by the BE23. I exited the plane and walked over to check on Pilot Y. He was uninjured and walked out of the aircraft.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported a ground conflict during taxi in as a BE23 pilot lost control of the aircraft during rev up in the hangar area.  The flight instructor took evasive action while the BE23 impacted a hangar.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During arrival on the LDORA STAR; we originally briefed Runway 34R; but were given 35L on check in with approach. Center had us go fast on the arrival and assigned 300 kts or better until advised so time was reduced for checklists and arrival changes. I; the PM (Pilot Monitoring); changed the runway in the FMS and linked it from the LDORA arrival; it looked correct and the PF (Pilot Flying) verbally verified the change before I executed it in FMS 1. After passing the LDORA fix; the airplane did not follow the FMS course and I reached up and hit Heading mode on the FCP (Flight Control Panel) and turned to an intercept heading and notified the PF that we were not on course. A few seconds later ATC must have seen us overshooting and gave us a heading back to intercept. We immediately dialed in the new heading and intercepted with no further errors. It was later discovered that in our dual FMS airplane that the FMS's were not synced properly and the change I made in FMS 1 did not duplicate in FMS 2; and we did not realize the error in time to correct before overshooting course.The root cause was a flight equipment deviation that was not properly discovered or verified by the flight crew. Contributing factors were the preconceived notion the flight equipment had been set up properly before the flight by maintenance and or another crew. This is not something we are required to check every flight (FMS sync) and some of our company airplanes have two FMS's and others only have a single FMS installed.To avoid this error in the future I will make sure to check that each FMS is synced properly in dual FMS aircraft.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on the LDORA STAR into DEN; citing lack of FMS synchronization as contributing.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise the flight deck and cabin crew detected an unrecognizable odor of which its source could not be identified. The odor would dissipate but would never completely go away. The decision was made to conduct a precautionary diversion. The divert airport's weather and proximity made it the most suitable airport for a diversion. We made the decision to wear our oxygen masks in the cockpit as a precaution against an escalating event as well as crew incapacitation can be hard to detect. I deferred the flying to our First Officer because I had recently studied and reviewed both the Smoke/Fumes/Avionics Smoke Checklist and the Emergency Descent checklist for an upcoming check ride. We did declare an emergency to give us the highest priority with ATC if an emergency descent was needed. The emergency authority would also allow us to run the Smoke/Fumes/Avionics Smoke Checklist if needed as well. I notified Dispatch; the passengers and flight attendants of our situation while we made our descent. While the First Officer continued the descent I preformed the procedure outlined in Flight Operations Manual. The approach and landing on the runway was routine and uneventful. We had the Airport Rescue and Fire Fighter vehicles follow us to the gate as a precaution. Once at the gate we were briefed and cleared by a member of the Airport Rescue and Fire Fighters; who informed us that they could not find any hot spots visually or through thermal imaging. The Airport Rescue and Fire Fighter Officer; who was trained in smoke identification; could also not recognize the odor. Three non revenue pilots on board each described the odor differently. Maintenance Control was notified and the crew was released by Dispatch to continue.




Synopsis: The pilots and flight attendants of an A319 detected an unidentified odor while at cruise so an emergency was declared and as the SMOKE/FUMES/AVIONICS SMOKE checklist was completed the flight diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a visual approach to Runway 18R direct and told to keep the speed up; Aircraft Y was on a 240 HDG then vectored west for spacing to sneak the Aircraft X. They were six miles apart and Aircraft Y was cleared for the ILS 18R and told to reduce to final approach speed to follow. Looking up at the airport ground traffic monitor; there was nobody departing for Runway 18L. As Aircraft Y got closer he called traffic in sight and I told him to follow; re-cleared Aircraft Y for the visual; and even told him S turns approved East of final if needed. He said in sight and follow.I switched Aircraft Y to the Tower. Then I monitored the Tower frequency to see what they were going to do. They did not say anything to the Aircraft X to keep your speed up or tell Aircraft Y to slow and then waited for the Aircraft Y to get to roughly 1;100 feet and less than two miles. The tower says to Aircraft Y 'final got you too close to Aircraft X ahead' and then asked Aircraft Y 'can you accept RWY18L?'  Aircraft Y replied 'why sure'. My beef with the tower is that they intentionally and deliberately waited to create an unsafe situation for Aircraft Y; creating an unsafe unstable approach for Aircraft Y to change runways at a thousand feet less than 2 miles from the runway intended to land. Tower says they cannot do speed control on final unless they need it for a departure; or they will send an aircraft around to get an aircraft off the runway. The tower takes no responsibility or accountability for working safe and expediting traffic. The tower controller intentionally and deliberately waited to create an unsafe situation for the pilot instead of offering another runway that was available right next to the one they are landing on before it even became a factor. Poor judgment by the tower controller on a situation that could've been resolved so much sooner. The tower continues to create unsafe situations not only with arrivals but also with departures especially in IFR conditions knowing that departures need at 2 increasing to 3 with ceilings at 200 feet.




Synopsis: F11 Approach Controller reports of the Tower waiting to change the runway of an arrival that was catching the preceding arrival. The second aircraft was changed to a parallel runway and landed safely.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departure clearance was via ZILLI 4 RNAV Departure with LAUER transition from Runway 25R. Early in takeoff roll; after thrust was set; ECAM 'Hot Brake' annunciated. One of the brakes indicated 300 degrees. My decision was to continue the takeoff. At 'Positive Rate' callout I decided to leave the gear down to cool the brake. AP1 (Autopilot 1) was engaged somewhere before reaching DOCKR waypoint. LAX Tower had us contact SoCal on 124.3. Crossing DOCKR waypoint; the aircraft failed to turn left toward WEILR waypoint. I failed to notice that deviation. About 1- 1.5 miles past DOCKR the FO (First Officer) alerted me about the deviation. I selected HDG (heading) mode and turned left to intercept the course to WEILR waypoint. At Flaps 0 callout I also called for 'Gear Up'. SoCal gave us Direct TANDY at about that time. Flight was uneventful from then on. The course deviation was because I did not ensure NAV (navigation) mode after reaching 400 feet AGL. I allowed the hot brake and gear down situation to distract me from flying the aircraft.


Second narrative: We are departing from Runway 25R; ZILLI4 RNAV Departure. To LAUER transition. During the take off roll; as engine was spooling up and accelerating; we had ECAM annunciated one of the brake is 300 degrees. We continued to takeoff; and kept the gear down to cool the brake. Captain engaged AP1 (Autopilot 1). As we handed over [to] Departure; ATC advised us the Tower noticed we still had gear down; and we explained keeping it down for a little longer to cool brake. When we passed DOCKER; we supposed to make left turn to WEILER; however we kept going straight on heading 251. So; I pointed to Captain to make left turn. As we are turning left; ATC gave us direct to TANDY. The curse deviation was because we did not confirm NAV (navigation) selected. We were in HDG (heading) mode. Although; we kept gear down due to hot brake was distraction; we must check and confirm FMA.


Synopsis: Airbus flight crew reported course deviation during climb out.