elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
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: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Fatigue
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Notified ATC and diversion due to burning smell inside flight deck. Passing through FL310 Captain asked First Officer (FO) if he smelled anything out of the ordinary.  FO stated he smelled something like burning toast.  Captain rang flight attendant and asked the same to which she stated burnt toast as well.  Captain notified ATC and we diverted to ZZZ.  During descent smell went away but reoccurred intermittently.  Performed overweight landing smoothly and stopped on runway.  Confirmed smell was gone with flight attendant and taxied to gate while fire rescue followed.  Passengers deplaned.  Maintenance met us at gate and we were able to duplicate smell when packs were turned on using APU. First Officer flew aircraft while Captain performed checklist.  We landed without further incident.  Captain and FO spoke and initially felt okay to continue on [from] ZZZ.  However as time passed and adrenaline wore off fatigue set in.  We spoke again and both determined that we could not safely operate the flight [from] ZZZ.


Second narrative: When climbing through 31;000 feet; both the FO and I noticed a distinct odor that smelled like burning toast. We immediately asked the FA if she smelled it as well and she did. I then [requested priority handling] with ATC and the FO initiated a descent as we diverted to ZZZ1. Once we descended through 31;000 feet; the smell dissipated. Throughout the flight; we smelled the burning order intermittently for short durations of only a few seconds. Once we landed; we came to a stop on the runway and assessed the situation. The odor was gone so we taxied back to our gate under our own power with fire trucks in tow. When at the gate with the door open and APU bleed and packs on; the odor came back and intensified. Maintenance was able to reproduce this on the ground.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported a fume event that resulted in a diversion. After landing when the APU bleed and packs were on; the odor returned.
Date: 201304
Location: CHD.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D CHD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: GPS provided faulty direction to an entered waypoint which I did not immediately recognize.  While manipulating the controls of the unit to attempt to get the appropriate result to the desired waypoint I continued to travel on an inappropriate course for my destination.  When I switched back to the map page I was very close to the Class D airspace of CHD and IWA and may have breached the border of the D airspace(s) while I was reversing course.  It could have been eliminated if I had reversed course immediately when I became aware of the problem with the GPS and returned to my departure airport and attempted to solve the problem on the ground.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reports problems with his GPS which is not immediately recognized; resulting in possible Class D airspace entry without a clearance.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While taxiing out we turned onto the taxiway and heard a pop; stopped; [and] checked for any indication of something abnormal. Nothing noted. Continued taxiing and took off with no indication of anything wrong. Tower called at 140 kts. on the takeoff roll. Called again passing 700 ft. after gear was retracted to inform us of a nose tire left on the taxiway. [We] made the decision to bring the jet to [destination]. Landed on [Runway XX] after advising ATC. Flaps 50 Power on flare. No damage noted; towed back to parking.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported hearing multiple loud pops on takeoff and was informed that a nose wheel assembly was left on the runway.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FSD.Airport, SD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 404 Titan
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D FSD
ATC / advisory: Tower FSD
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared to land Runway 15; while 8 miles from the airport. My company traffic was preceding me to the airport. Prior to company traffic landing; the Tower had an F-16 which was in the traffic pattern; execute a go-around. As I neared the airport; the Tower advised me of the F-16 in the traffic pattern. I noticed the F-16 on a downwind for Runway 21. As I neared approximately a mile final for Runway 15; I noticed the F-16 on an approximate 1 mile final for Runway 21. At this time I questioned the Controller if I was cleared to land Runway 15. The Controller said yes; that I was number 2. At this point I decided to initiate a left 360; to re-enter final for Runway 15 and land. As I initiated my turn; I advised the Controller that I was making a left 360. The Controller said nothing. As I was about 180 degrees into my turn; I verified with the Controller that I was cleared to land on Runway 15. The Controller confirmed that I was cleared to land [Runway] 15. Upon discussing this with my Director of Operations and Director of Safety; it was mentioned that I should have initiated a go-around straight ahead; as that airspace 'should' be cleared ahead of me. It was also made mention that if traffic had been behind me; it could have created a conflict. With the situational awareness I had; I knew there was no conflicting traffic behind me; and with the F-16's go-around before the preceding company traffic; I could not guarantee that the airspace was cleared ahead of me. Also; my turn to the left put me closer to the traffic; rather than away from it; so a right turn may have been a better option. I choose the left; since I was single pilot and my view is best in a left turn. Corrective action; speak up sooner if something doesn't seem right!!!




Synopsis: IFR Twin inbound to FSD elected to execute a 360 degree turn on final without ATC approval because of military traffic operating on an intersecting runway.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LOWW.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were being vectored to final for Runway 29. I was the PF [Pilot Flying]. We had been assigned 180 knots by the Approach Controller; I was maintaining that. There was an aircraft about 5 miles ahead as we were on base to final. While intercepting the localizer; the Captain instructed me to slow to 160 knots; as the aircraft was now 4 miles in front of us. I hesitated as we had been assigned a speed; but then followed the Captain's instructions. He told ATC 'we are slowing to 160 knots for separation with the aircraft in front of us.' ATC immediately told us not to slow without permission; then said to maintain 160 knots to 6 DME. He then told us he can go to 2.5 miles separation. We encountered some light wake turbulence and after landing saw that the preceding aircraft was a 787. ATC in Vienna is always challenging to deal with at best. As PF; I was put in the position where I had to choose whether to follow an ATC clearance; or the Captain's instructions. ATC in Vienna is not the best. Approach Controllers will assign speeds on final that are immediately contradicted by the Tower Controller after switching over; for example; 'maintain 180 knots to 6 miles' then after switching to Tower; 'slow to minimum approach speed; aircraft departing ahead.' The Captain made orders to me contradicting an ATC clearance; that didn't make sense at the time; so I just had to randomly follow his instructions. After landing and thinking about it for a while; he explained his reasoning; which then made some sense. Better communication during the event would have helped us be on the same page during it; which I always think is a better way to do things. The Captain made the right call in my opinion; we would have probably encountered more wake turbulence with the 787 as our separation decreased. Tower also departed an aircraft ahead of us on 29; and had we not slowed; it more than likely would have resulted in a go around for us.




Synopsis: Air carrier F/O reported slowing below ATC assigned speed when directed to do so by the Captain; who saw a potential conflict occurring with the aircraft preceding them.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other Go Around
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a go-around the aircraft was on the upwind at 800 feet MSL when the engine lost all power and the engine began wind milling. The instructor performed the engine failure in flight checklist with no restart. The instructor made a radio call to tower 'Tower; Aircraft X [has an] emergency engine failure' the engine restarted 'we have it back I want the first available runway.' Tower responded 'Cleared to land.' The instructor executed a normal landing and turned right on taxiway. Tower wanted to know if any further assistance was needed. The instructor responded 'Negative.' and taxied back to the ramp under aircraft's own power.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported the engine quit in the pattern. Engine was restarted successfully and a normal landing ensued.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We were] required to wear C02 monitor due to dry ice waiver. During de-icing operations with packs off; the monitor alarm began to chirp. I donned the O2 mask and noticed the level on the monitor as 0.5 and climbing to 0.7. Both the Captain and I stayed on O2 for approximately 20 minutes during the duration of de-icing. After confirmation from ground support that the deicing procedure was complete; I turned the packs on per the QRH and the CO2 alarm subsided approximately 1 minute later. The Captain called the Duty Officer for protocol guidance regarding the event and we were advised that we were 'probably OK' to continue. We resumed the flight. Unfortunately; we have no idea to determine the levels of CO2 in the cockpit and our exposure levels. We followed the published bulletin relating to the CO2. Better guidance and knowledge from flight safety regarding our susceptibility of the types of exposure risks pertaining to hazardous materials.




Synopsis: The First Officer of a cargo flight noticed his carbon monoxide monitor alerting at a 0.5 to 0.7 level during de-ice operations with the Packs OFF and dry ice onboard. The crew used oxygen for about 20 minutes until the Packs were ON again.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Quality Assurance / Audit
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This is an official report of [company] Airline's shortcuts in maintenance and processes. During the month of November 2018; there have been 22 SDRs (Service Difficulty Reports) that have not been reported; for events like shattered windows in-flight; engine shutdowns in-flight; landing gears malfunctioning; etc. When I informed these to my supervisors; they swept it under the rug; and my boss literally said; 'That is not my problem...let it go!!' And he is the Quality Assurance Director. These guys should not work in aviation because all the safety issues are most of the time ignored; or neglected.

Callback: Reporter explained that discrepancies in reporting process related to Service Difficulty Reports (SDR) were found during audits but were not corrected. Critical items such as in-flight engine shutdowns and landing gear malfunctions were not reported to the FAA. Fuel tank mechanics were not properly trained to comply with SFR88 requirements.



Synopsis: Maintenance Auditor reported critical airplane component failures are not being reported as required by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)'s.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in position on the runway; initially with a Lineup and Wait clearance; when we received takeoff clearance. My Captain was Pilot Flying. As he began to advance the thrust levers for takeoff we received an ECAM Caution message F/CTL ELAC 2 PITCH FAULT (Flight Control Elevator and Aileron Computer). Thrust was still spooling up to 50% on the initial setting and we slowly had begun to roll not quite up to a normal taxi speed. The Captain retarded thrust levers to idle and I notified tower of our problem as well as the need to taxi off the runway. Tower cleared us to taxi off the runway where we stopped; discussed the message; and ran our QRH procedure. My Captain also contacted [Maintenance Control] for concurrence as we conducted the QRH procedure. This directed us to perform a reset of the system. This reset successfully cleared the Fault; the Captain entered an INFO ITEM in the AML (Airplane Maintenance Log) indicating as such at the direction of [Maintenance Control]; and we then continued by performing a successful takeoff with no further issues.The sole issue in this instance is a Flight Control Computer Fault which was successfully cleared via a QRH-directed reset procedure. I believe we handled this properly in accordance with FOM; OM Vol 1; and QRH procedures. The problem was due to a Computer Fault causing us to reject the takeoff.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported rejected takeoff.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Aborted takeoff
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After an aborted takeoff; student incorrectly applied power to aircraft and failed to correct for left turning tendencies allowing aircraft to veer off runway into the grass and knocked over an airport sign and runway light. Student failed and refused to relinquish throttle to me (CFI); my application of brakes and rudder were ineffective in trying to overpower the student's applications. Damage [was] only to skin of leading edge of the starboard wing from impact with the sign. No power plant/prop or landing gear damage. Airport manager has students' aircraft insurance information for claim and repair of sign and light.




Synopsis: A CH2T instructor reported a student lost control of the aircraft after an aborted takeoff; refused to relinquish control; had a runway excursion damaging an airport sign and the aircraft wing.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MUE.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E MUE
ATC / advisory: CTAF MUE
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing MUE VFR; we were on the right downwind climbing out. There was a BKN-OVC layer about 1;000 above us; just south of our location. I was about to switch to Approach to open my IFR flight plan; when I received a traffic alert on the TAS. The target was showing 100 FT above me and right on top of my location. I stopped the climb; and maneuvered to the right in an attempt to avoid the traffic. I was surprised to see traffic in this location and questioned whether or not the target was possibly a false echo or even our own ship. I never saw anybody; but a few seconds later a helicopter made a broken radio call that said he was two miles south of the airport; which was also our approximate location. I switched to HCF Approach and began receiving advisories until getting my IFR clearance. The tour helicopters seem to fly pretty close to clouds out here and can be very hard to see. Our company has recently started airline service into this airport and the helicopter pilots are probably not used to much traffic in this area. I will be much more vigilant when departing uncontrolled fields in Hawaii. One lesson here is to remember to keep eyes outside and always be aware of the possibilities of other traffic in the area.




Synopsis: A departing fixed-wing pilot encountered an inbound helicopter as he was in the process of picking up his IFR clearance.