elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other post pushback
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We started our push from the gate. About half way through the push we started to hear a squealing/Rubbing sound. As the ramp agents were disconnecting the tug the sound got louder and we started to smell burning/fumes of some sort. We couldn't identify it and it got very strong. It appeared to be rubber or electrical.I shut down both engines and the flight attendant called on the PA she initially said that she didn't smell anything then stated that she was smelling something. I then determined the smell didn't appear to be subsiding so I decided the best course of action was to get the people off the plane. I verified verbally with her that the prop was stopped and told her to evacuate through the main cabin door only. The First Officer was talking to Ramp Control who had fire trucks on the way. We then left the aircraft.


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


Synopsis: During pushback Dash 8 aircraft experienced smoke and fumes. Crew stopped push; shut down engines; and commenced passenger/crew evacuation.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am submitting this report to document the SILCN 1 Arrival and the problems with the descent profile. We were prepared for the descent issue from the notice on the departure weather packet in the originating station. ATC gave us the clearance to fly the filed route which had the SILCN 1 arrival into SJC. After the initial descent; ATC gave us descend and maintain FL200. The SILCN fix has an altitude of FL200A. We closed the route on the FMC prior to our descent and were wondering what the descent profile would be if we made the altitude at SILCN a hard altitude of FL200. The descent profile went from on the flight path to over 4;000 feet high.We were NOT given a clearance to descend via on the arrival; so I elected to slow down to 250 knots at SILCN because I was concerned about being too high on profile. In retrospect; I should have asked ATC if we needed to observe that restriction.After we passed SILCN; we accelerated up to almost 320 knots to get back onto the descent profile. When checking the altitude and airspeed at the KLIDE fix; we also removed the ABOVE part of the altitude restriction which put us over 2;000 feet high again. Having flown this approach almost 100 times in my career; I know that the current altitude fix and speed (230 knots) is a comfortable descent profile. In summary; please adjust the SILCN 1 for a proper descent profile so that crews do not need to be vectored off the arrival to get onto an acceptable profile.

Callback: The reporter stated that the ILS 30 transition is at GILRO intersection; even though KLIDE is the common Waypoint for the SILCN 1 to ILS 30; so the FMS will fly back to GILRO to begin the approach. That extra leg; KLIDE; GILRO; KLIDE; adds the additional altitude to have the aircraft arrive a second time over KLIDE at 4;000 feet.



Synopsis: A Large Transport Aircraft was high on the SILCN 1 arrival profile because the ILS 30 transition point is GILRO which occurs after the common SILCN 1 to ILS 30 transition point KLIDE. Therefore the FMC will fly from KLIDE to GILRO to KLIDE which requires the additional altitude.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: NEW.Airport, LA
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D NEW
ATC / advisory: Tower NEW
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft was on about a 1/2 mile right base for RWY 36R and cleared to land. As he was turning final; he reported a drone sighting about 400-500 ft. away from his aircraft. Do not allow any drone activity in any controlled airspace; regardless of altitude.




Synopsis: Controller reported that a pilot reported encountering a drone while on a visual approach to New Orleans Lakefront airport.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon gear extension during a visual approach to Runway 18; the left main gear green light failed to illuminate. There was no red gear unsafe light; and a quick light bulb test verified that both light bulbs in the gear down cartridge had failed. We initiated a go-around; and the First Officer extracted one bulb from the gear unsafe light cartridge; and installed it in the gear down light cartridge. We executed another bulb test; verified that all six gear lights were functioning; and then executed a second visual approach; landing normally. We did not declare an emergency; and we wrote up the bulb failures in the aircraft logbook. The issue that I want to point out has to do with the QRH. There is no procedure for replacing a gear down indication light bulb in the QRH. As far as I can find; there is no authorization anywhere for a pilot to replace a light bulb under any circumstances. In that respect; replacing the bulb becomes a utilization of the Captain's emergency authority. At the time; I did not consider this.Gear down indication failures happen. A quick review of the FAA SDR data shows that they happen relatively often; and that the standard response is to swap bulbs; cartridges; etc. in order to obtain a safe gear indication. However; the QRH preface is clear that all non-normal procedures are contained within the QRH. A bulb changing procedure is not contained in the QRH. There are two reasons to re-consider this situation: first; simple things like changing light bulbs can have huge unintended consequences in some designs; i.e.; cartridge springs popping out; improper re-seating of the cartridge causing a short; etc. Second; in order to obtain compliance with the QRH philosophy regarding non-normals; 'routine' or foreseeable problems like the gear down indication need to be included; even if it is a simple procedure that says; 'change the bulb'.




Synopsis: A MD-80 Captain reported that after the landing gear extension the left main gear had no indication so the First Officer tested the bulbs to discover them inoperative so they were changed. There was no authorization to change any bulb.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HLM.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E HLM
ATC / advisory: CTAF HLM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During final approach to HLM RWY 23; I may have descended too low for a normal approach due to the short runway & steep approach required over the trees. The trees force a 1;150 ft. displaced threshold for RWY 23; however; the displaced threshold markings (and all runway markings) were extremely faded. Unfortunately; there also were multiple displaced thresholds/rwy markings for RWY 23; making it difficult to discern which threshold should be cleared before landing and how much runway was left. With only ;ft. usable runway; I did not want to be high on approach; however; my clearance over the trees; and more importantly; over a house in the trees; may have been inadequate and too low for a normal 3 deg approach to the displaced threshold.   Ultimately; the inability to identify the proper runway markings during approach led to a lower-than-normal approach close to trees and obstacles.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying too low to the ground on a visual approach to HLM airport.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During flight we were recleared from KLNDR1 to the WHINY1 STAR. During the reprogram of the FMS we planned on landing on 35C into DFW and programmed the FMS for that. During the descent prior to HOWDY we were transferred to Ft Worth Approach. APP reassigned us a new runway from what was planned. I decided to change the FMS to runway 36R. During my reprogramming of the FMS it dumped the flight plan from the FMS and didn't have any waypoints after our next fix of HOWDY. During this time I rushed to correct the issue by DTO function on the FMS to reestablish ourselves back on course. During this time we were in our descent for the RNAV arrival. I noticed we were going to be high at HOWDY. I hurried up the descent but still crossed HOWDY above the window of 11;000 to 12;000 FT by 1;300 FT high. We contacted ATC and she told us just to hurry down as best we could.This was my first flight with the new FMS. My lack of knowledge of the new FMS caused distractions from flying the aircraft first then asking for help in reprogramming. Lack of using CRM.




Synopsis: EMB145 First Officer experiences a loss of the programed arrival while attempting to enter a runway change into the FMC. A new and unfamiliar FMS was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201503
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at cruise at FL360 we began to experience what felt like someone applying short; brisk; rudder inputs.  These varied between left and right input; and there was no discernible pattern.  The ride was smooth so as not to confuse this with any turbulence--supported by the Flight Attendants (FA) who all remarked they noticed the unusual behavior. After we realized it was a continuing anomaly; and because there were no indications of any rudder input by lower EICAS or actual rudder pedals; we [notified] ATC.  We initiated the descent; referenced the QRH to our situation as practical; and continued to [destination]. The anomaly lessened considerably below FL200; and the flight terminated without further incident. Upon arrival at the gate we were informed there was at least one historical event on this airplane related to rudder control.


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


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported noticing uncommanded rudder inputs in cruise flight. Crew decided to continue to destination.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While operating to CLT; we encountered wake turbulence. We were talking to CLT final approach control who gave us a 330 heading to intercept the localizer for runway 36L. We were level at 4000 feet and assigned 170 knots. We were not issued any information about traffic in front of us; although we did see a target about 3 miles ahead of us on the TCAS. Shortly before localizer intercept; we encountered severe wake turbulence that rolled the airplane approximately 40 degrees and disconnected the autopilot. I assumed manual control; turned on continuous ignition and hand flew the rest of the approach 1/2 dot above the glideslope to avoid further wake. We queried ATC and were told we were following an A321. This is not the first time I've encountered wake here in CLT. Controllers seem to not respect the effect of wake on our airplanes.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to CLT in trail of an A321 that rolled the aircraft 40 degrees.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Advanced the trust levers to 1.5 and got a caution light for ECAM message nav something or other; and then got ecam blue message that it was in test mode and then retard aural. Rejected takeoff at maybe 10 knots and taxied off the Runway by now the aircraft had fixed itself. Did another before takeoff checklist and took off.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported rejecting the takeoff in SEA after receiving a momentary ECAM message reflecting a navigation error.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ISM.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ISM
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a recent flight from ZZZ1 to ISM. The departure and cruise was uneventful. However; when I got closer to Orlando traffic picked up a lot. I was handed over a few times and the frequency was busy with requests and instructions. Orlando Approach gave me altitude changes and heading vectors. They initially gave me Runway 33; but that would have given me a huge quartering/gusting tailwind; so I requested and was provided Runway 6. They were routing me around and provided me with progressive heading changes. I was already in a turn; when they gave me another. Luckily I saw movement over the top of the wing and caught sight of fast moving traffic really close in. I pushed over quickly; and notified Approach 'altitude deviation for traffic'. They just responded with a handover to the next frequency. I can't remember if that was the southern frequency or ISM Tower. I continued with the task at hand; followed instructions; and made a remarkably good landing. Once at the hotel; I checked my track and traffic online. At that point when I pushed over; there was 175 foot separation between me and the airplane that passed over the top of me. This left me a bit rattled. Yes; I was in VMC; but I was also under active routing by approach.  What do I do? Report it? Chalk it up as angels of mercy flying along me? Learn to question every move that ATC gives? I did learn that I am PIC and the only entity responsible for the safety for me and my family.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC event during a VFR flight under Approach Control routing.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Merlin III
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After level off at 8000 feet MSL the left engine oil pressure started to fluctuate. The lower part of the fluctuation arc was going into the yellow section of the oil pressure gauge. We decided to return to ZZZ and advised Departure Control of our decision. The controller approved a descent to 4000 feet and a turn toward a 10 to 12 mile final for at ZZZ. After arriving on final the fluctuations became more pronounced and we elected to shut the engine down. A safe landing was made.




Synopsis: SW3 Merlin Captain reported loss of oil pressure on left engine so the engine was shut down; and a return to departure airport executed.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Post ; flight several days
Aircraft component: Fuel Drain
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Parts / Stores Personnel
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The purpose of this report is to identify an error I made of shipping an unserviceable Hazmat part.  The error was in not identifying the part shipped as Hazmat and completing the Shippers Declaration of Dangerous Goods and not properly following the procedures in handling of Dangerous Goods shipment.  I am employed as a Stock Clerk. I have XX years experience in my position and have worked [this station's stores for years].  During my service as a Stock Clerk I have handled Hazmat; and I am familiar with the importance of properly identifying and the procedures involved with shipping Hazmat. The part in question was [a drain] removed from an aircraft.  This part when used and removed from aircraft; may contain some fuel residue which would qualify as Hazmat.  This part is a Class 9 miscellaneous.  I had not handled this particular part before; and in processing removal didn't notice the Hazmat banner on paperwork.  I also didn't notice any odor of fuel in packing the part.  A key error on my part was not running the part number in [Hazmat database] before shipping item.  Items such as this are considered NON HAZARDOUS when new from vendor; and only become hazardous upon removal; due to possibility of fuel residue.  The day of my mistake was a particularly busy day as I shipped numerous parts; received numerous parts and had other mitigating circumstances which divided my attention such as phones calls and delivering parts to aircraft.  I need to always check the [Hazmat database] website and run the part to make sure with unfamiliar parts especially; and if any doubt call the Hazmat department.  I also need to narrow my focus on the task at hand and try not to do so much at once.




Synopsis: Commercial Airline Maintenance Personnel self reported Hazmat shipping violation by not following maintenance procedure.