elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: RV-6
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on the ramp and requested takeoff clearance while a turbo prop plane came in for landing. The Tower gave me taxi clearance to the runway via [the] taxiway and hold short of the runway. After the landing aircraft turned off the runway; I began my taxi. As I turned to hold short; a small aircraft touched down on the runway. The Tower than cleared me to depart direct to the west. After about 20 minutes of local flight; I learned the runway was closed. After we returned later in the day; I learned the small aircraft had crash landed. I reviewed the Tower communication that evening then realized my rotor wash might have interfered with the crashed aircraft. However; I was in compliance with my taxi clearance when I held short on the runway.




Synopsis: Pilot suspects that his rotor wash may have contributed to another aircraft ground looping.
Date: 202005
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was airborne at XA55z; I was notified at approximately XD15z/[Date] about a Dangerous Goods shipment that was boarded; but not properly documented.  Preliminary load had no Dangerous Goods listed; so crew wasn't looking for any Dangerous Goods information. Sent the Dangerous Goods information to the crew: 1 pc; 63 lbs; UN2915 [Radioactive Material; Type A Package]; T.I. 1; medical shipment containing SR-82 [Strontium-82]. Loaded in bulk pit 51. Discussed with crew and will continue to destination.




Synopsis: Airline Dispatcher reported being notified of departed flight had unreported Dangerous Goods on board.
Date: 201604
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach selected flaps 1 received trailing edge flap disagree message. This was a previous write up for this aircraft. Captain [advised ATC] and took over radio communications. First Officer completed QRH checklist. Landed with no further issues. Captain advised maintenance of events from flight and made an Aircraft Maintenance Log (AML) entry.




Synopsis: B757-200 First Officer reported receiving a trailing edge flap disagree message on approach.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After cleared for takeoff; standard power set; at approximately 80 KIAS; computer called out windshear; and I saw windshear on Nav Display; I called out to Captain 'WINDSHEAR'; and Captain aborted takeoff at approximately 95 KIAS...plenty of runway and Captain accomplished simple reject without slamming on brakes; and cleared runway at taxiway Bravo I believe. We held on Bravo. Accomplished QRH checklist and waited for 15 minutes allowing brakes to reach peak temperatures...281 was peak. We re-accomplished all applicable checklists; and taxied back for normal takeoff using windshear procedures. During this wait; Tower did not report any windshear and new ATIS Bravo did not reflect windshear as well. Takeoff was uneventful. Strong winds were the cause of this event. Winds reported by tower at takeoff clearance; 300/30G38.




Synopsis: A heavy McDonnell Douglas First Officer reports a windshear warning at 80 knots during takeoff and the Captain rejects the takeoff at 95 knots. After brake cooling the next attempt is successful.
Date: 202111
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff I smelled dirty socks; dirty feet odor. Flight Attendant 1 smelled it as well. Captain said it was a fume event. In the cockpit the odor was much stronger the in the forward galley. First Officer said she felt burning in her throat when the event occurred. Company report was filled out. Couple hours later; at the hotel my eyes and face were very red; felt a little congested the next day. Keeping the planes well-maintained; or retire them if the problem cannot be fixed so these dangerous events will not occur. It can be dangerous for the crew's and passengers' health.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported a fumes event after takeoff described as a 'dirty socks' smell.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: With APU running and in the blocks at gate preparing for pushback; cockpit filled up with heavy; acrid smoke.  Turned off packs and closed bleed valves; smoke slowly dissipated. Smoke emanated from the vent areas on the lower left side of the flight deck.  First Officer got up and opened L1 door; stairs were in place.  Contacted ramp tower; who notified fire department; and then we contacted maintenance.  Conferred with both maintenance and fire crew; wrote up discrepancy.Possible de-icing of the tail area without notification to flight crew.  When leaving the aircraft; noticed de-ice fluid on the ground.  There was also snow in the courier area and main cargo deck upon arrival at the aircraft.  Called maintenance; who removed the snow and water; but moisture may have gotten into certain systems.


Second narrative: Preflight Normal. Called maintenance for snow removal. Closed the door and ready for push back. Called for Beacon and Engine Inlet Inspection. While waiting for approx 1 hour (total time from jet arrival) with Packs running noticed Heavy smoke out of vents on left side of cockpit. Shut down Packs Bleeds and APU; then notified Ramp tower. Smoke dissipated as we waited in courier area with door open; Fire Department and Maintenance could find no evidence of heat although smoke appeared when maintenance tried to duplicate. After exiting the aircraft we noticed some evidence of de-icing at the back of aircraft. It is possible Deicing commenced without our knowledge. No one contacted us on the radio or intercom.It is possible the aircraft was deiced without communicating with crew.


Synopsis: A B757-200 filled with smoke while at the gate with the APU running. The smoke dissipated with the packs off and bleeds closed. Apparently the de-ice crew allowed fluid to enter the APU intake.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxied out without the nose wheel being connected. Due to a not performing my pre[flight] inspection exterior check closer. [I] had a high work load environment. As FBO did not have plane on line as I requested the night before; FBO was short staffed and once the plane was brought on line I felt a little rushed to get back on schedule. Passengers arrived at time of departure but was then informed we had one less passenger; [which] added to my work load of contacting Dispatch. I felt a little rushed to get the trip out on time and did a quick walk around and missing that the nose wheel torque link was connected. After starting to taxi; I felt something wasn't right with the steering and I asked my SIC to try steering. He asked me if the torque link was connected and I had doubts but said yes; and I asked if he did his inspection. He said he did and he said it looked connected. I determined it wasn't connected and that we need to stop and inspect. I shut down the left engine and visually determined the nose wheel wasn't connected. I determined the safest course of action was to contact the FBO and have a tug brought out to re-center the nose wheel. They accomplished this and I reinspected the nose gear and the flight resumed. I missed the nose gear on my inspection. I felt a little rushed this trip and tour over the fact that my SIC doesn't have his ID or keys requiring me to open close all the doors and panels before and after each flight. Also. my SIC didn't perform his walk around inspection closely and he also missed the nose gear torque link. In the end; I will now physically touch the nose wheel torque link to verify that it is indeed connected.




Synopsis: EMB-505 Captain reported a nose wheel steering issue during taxi due to the failure to reconnect the nose gear torque links during preflight.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I observed a B737 flight plan in my URET at FL350; Sector 27; Hampton U-Hi; had track control. I observed the B737 in a hand off status to my sector at an interim FL330. Sector 27 still had track control. Sector 22 had approved a point out and released the aircraft to Sector 27. Sector 27 never called to gain approval for the aircraft to enter my airspace at FL330; a different stratum. The aircraft didn't come over in a timely manner so I inquired about the APREQ when I called to get communications. The Controller called me back and advised he 'didn't have to APREQ it because the aircraft was level at FL330.' Our QA has already determined that any stratum change requires coordination as does our facility operations manual. Earlier in the day; the same sector 'ok'd' FL340 into the Data Block on an aircraft in the same situation after Sector 34 had the hand off at FL350 and descended the aircraft to FL340 without coordination and with head on traffic. I don't know if that situation was reported. This mentality is rampant amongst the area in question and happens constantly. The procedures are there for a reason. Perhaps a pre-duty QA reminder in CEDAR that stratum change requires coordination is in order.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller voiced concern regarding the lack of compliance with facility directives involving altitudes; coordination and altitude assignments.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skywagon 185
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On [Date] at approximately XA:30; the aircraft departed ZZZ primary runway. Two landings were accomplished on the secondary runway. The second landing resulted in the left gear leg separating from the aircraft; resulting in the aircraft coming to rest on its left wing. Weather; NOTAMs and Temporary flight restrictions were reviewed prior to the event. Winds were light and variable at the surface and unrestricted visibility prevailed. The arrival runway was analyzed and briefed prior to arrival. It was determined that once contact with the surface was made the landing would be the safest possible action and a go-around from that point be ruled out. The second landing resulted in more float than the first landing; possibly due to a higher ground speed from a wind gust impacting the approach path angle.




Synopsis: C185 pilot reported the left landing gear leg separated from the aircraft during landing resulting in the aircraft coming to a rest on the left wing. Wind gusts reportedly contributed to the event.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At around 50 feet AGL over XXR in ZZZ; we encountered wake turbulence from the previous landing and went around.  Calm winds; tight arrival spacing; longer landing by the previous aircraft all added up to good conditions for wake turbulence.  Went around and landed on the next approach without issue.

Callback: Reporter stated the low altitude go-around was the safest option.



Synopsis: First Officer reported executing a go-around from 50 feet AGL after encountering wake turbulence from preceding aircraft.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-23 Apache/Geronimo Apache
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the takeoff roll and immediately after rotation; I noticed the front baggage door was not secure. I then assessed the available runway distance remaining and made the decision to reduce power and land on the runway to secure the door. I taxied to the FBO ramp and then shut down the engines and re-secured the door latch and lock. The door came unlatched because I did not have it properly locked. There was no damage to the aircraft and we continued to our destination shortly after the aborted takeoff.




Synopsis: As a PA-32 became airborne; the pilot noticed the front baggage door open and immediately pulled power and landed. At the FBO discovered that he had not properly closed and locked the door.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was in cruise flight at FL 260 and kept hearing a whistling noise from the rear of the pressurized cabin.  Pressurization indications didn't appear to be abnormal but I didn't feel well. I was hot and light headed and felt almost hypoxic. I decided to inform ATC that I wasn't feeling well and needed to divert to ZZZ. I was given a clearance to descend and I put on my oxygen mask and started an emergency descent. I was cleared direct to ZZZ and proceeded to head that way. ATC informed me that they were [providing priority handling] on my behalf and I acknowledged them. I proceeded to descend down to each clearance limit and then made a safe and successful landing at ZZZ.




Synopsis: PC-12 Pilot reported a diversion due to experiencing hypoxia symptoms possibly the result of a pressurization issue.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The pushback crew reported ready over the flight interphone. This station requires flights to be 'fully ready' before a route clearance can be obtained from Air Traffic Control (ATC). So we proceeded to obtain our route clearance only to be interrupted by another voice on the flight interphone with a lengthy; non-standard transmission I did not understand. I responded 'standby.' My instruction generated another lengthy; non-standard transmission that I ignored to concentrate on our ATC interactions; including both the route clearance and a pushback clearance. Then I returned my attention to the flight interphone where I ultimately understood the woman on the headset wanted pushback clearance and notification of the official brake release time. I cleared her to initiate push and reported the brake release time as requested. Shortly thereafter the original voice requested permission to initiate pushback. There is no room for confusion during pushback let alone confusion over who is speaking on the flight interphone. I obtained absolute clarification that this original voice was indeed representing the pushback crew. I was told the other voice was a Customer Service Supervisor who had been eager for an on time departure. I had no way to know I had released the aircraft parking brakes based on instructions from a customer service representative rather than the authorized push crew. The unauthorized brake release was inadvertent on my part. In spite of the interruptions there were no misunderstandings regarding ATC clearances and no associated violations. I told the pushback crew that I never wanted them to yield the headset to a customer service supervisor again. We returned to professional status and resumed the pushback. One way I might avoid such a circumstance is to refuse to release the aircraft brakes if the headset operator deviates from the standard dialog. However; push back crew at international stations such as this serve multiple airlines and seldom conform to the dialog specified in our manuals. To refuse brake release due to dialog deviations would mean the vast majority of flights would not operate.




Synopsis: A B767 captain reports being confused by a Customer Service Supervisor at an international station who is using the pushback crew's headset to request brake release time. The brakes are released prior to being officially cleared to do so by the pushback crew.