elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; [the] Captain's windshield shattered. There was an initial flash at the base of the windshield and caused the glass to crack. A few minutes later the entire windshield was shattered. The aircraft did not lose cabin pressure and no glass broke off. The Captain donned their oxygen mask and then I put mine on as well. I was Pilot Flying and slowed the aircraft to 200 kts. I confirmed with the Captain and [requested priority handling] with Air Traffic Control and diverted to ZZZ2. This decision was easy to make because [recent flight training] was a flight [from] ZZZ1 to ZZZ with an incident that causes you to divert to ZZZ2. The flight ended in ZZZ2 and we did a plane swap and finished our flight to ZZZ1.Landing the plane with an oxygen mask on was a first for me because in prior training; we normally take them off once the aircraft is below 10;000 MSL. The site picture is definitely different when landing. Days later; during the trip; I learned that there was an emergency and abnormal procedures for a shattered windshield. I'm used to a warning or caution light triggering me to refer to the E&A checklist. I recommend studying at least the table of contents to know what is in the E&A checklist.




Synopsis: Q400 First Officer reported that the cockpit window shattered inflight and diverted to an alternate airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MHLM.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground MHLM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After parking at the gate; ECAM: 'SMOKE AFT CARGO SMOKE'. Followed Airbus procedural steps with FO; identified as ECAM action checklist; followed ECAM and noted 'if aft cargo closed' step. Aft cargo indicated closed; so proceeded to 'agent discharge' and then 'Passenger disembark'. I contacted Purser and ordered FAs to initiate emergency deplaning via Jet Bridge and aft stairs (Passengers on ramp were escorted to immigration via terminal door). I called Tower and in plain English stated 'request fire truck to aircraft'; was advised no smoke seen and truck on the way. I completely shut aircraft down after last passenger and FA was off (I walked aisle to check) and Fire Chief opened aft cargo door. No sign of any fire in compartment. Two FAs treated at scene for fume inhalation; no other injuries reported.Afterwards; station personnel came to me and informed me that it is normal procedure in MHLM after engine shutdown for them to open cargo compartments and spray insecticide (sitracsum) into bay; then shut the cargo door again. Apparently; this has caused warnings before; but there has been no notification to crews about this; nor are there any messages or anything to inform crews about this. This puts the crew in the impossible position of having to decide if the smoke warning is real or not; with disturbing implications for other similar scenarios.INFORM CREWS OF THIS! This is a classic breakdown in chain of information distribution that could have led to serious injuries. I suggest that this insecticide procedure be halted at once until further tests and/or Airbus manufacturer approval be obtained for this substance.




Synopsis: Airbus Captain reported receiving a SMOKE AFT CARGO ECAM during deplaning. It was later determined the alarm was caused by insecticide sprayed into the compartment by ground personnel.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: # 1 fuel gauge was on MEL. During flight I noticed a heavy left wing requiring right aileron. We suspected a fuel imbalance. After reading the maintenance action; it turned out to be a 5200 pound imbalance. Manual fuel procedures used for the entire flight with no cross feeding. Fueling error.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported a heavy left wing which was determined to be caused by a fuel imbalance.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival at gate [in] ZZZ I went through my shutdown flow and stated shutdown checklist complete. I then moved my seat slightly aft to begin stowing my items into the kitbag when I noticed what I thought was the jet bridge moving forward. It took a moment to realize that the aircraft was actually moving aft. With my seat further aft than normal; I had to reach the brakes with my toes which brought the aircraft to a stop more abruptly than normal. I made a PA; then restarted Number 1 and taxied back to the gate.Somehow; I neglected to set the parking brake. When I set the brake; I look for pressure and look for the parking brake sign- not sure how I forgot it. From now on; I will verbalize parking brake set before turning off the seatbelt sign.A male passenger in row 24 fell over and his iPad struck a lady in row 24 on the forehead. FAs (Flight Attendants) gave ice to the passenger and when she left the airplane she turned down further assistance saying that it was 'just a bump.'I assume that I missed setting the parking brake because of a distraction; although I cannot recall what distracted me.Speaking for myself; I will now say; 'Parking Brake Set' before turning off the seat belt sign.


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


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported failing to set the parking brake; resulting in the aircraft rolling several feet after parking.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Airport] had just reopened. Airport had limited power; facilities and access. I was returning to my [home airport]. My car was located in a hangar that was not accessible due to power outage. I texted the location of the ramp where I planned to park to my daughter-in-law to meet us. I also texted her the ramp access code. Not being familiar with the airport; my daughter-in-law entered the wrong gate. She subsequently crossed an active runway with her vehicle enroute to the ramp. There were many stressful events leading up to this activity. As a result I made a very bad decision by giving her the gate access code. In hind sight I should have just directed her to the outside perimeter and met her to access the facility myself.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported an unfamiliar family member crossed an active runway while traversing the airport in a car.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the initial climb from ZZZ to ZZZ1 we experienced a sequence of erratic events starting from landing gear unsafe to wind shear advisory; immediately followed [by] unreliable airspeed and altitude from all our ADC (Air Data Computer) systems. It became immediately clear that [the] ADC was most likely the issue. We immediately advised the Control Tower and we were asked to contact ZZZ2 Center. We advised ZZZ2 Center of the situation we were experiencing and told them that we couldn't maintain a reliable airspeed and altitude; we advised them of our intention to return back to ZZZ Airport Runway XXL.Once we were vectored to left downwind leg; upon reaching what we believed was 8;000 ft.; we had the caution message ADC1 MIS COMP. We followed the QRH checklist but we still couldn't determine the proper altitude and speed. We both agreed that the right-side PFD had more reliable information compared to the left one so I decided transfer control to the pilot on the right seat. We also agreed that [it] wasn't necessary to [request priority handling]; [due to] having positive control of the aircraft; being in VMC conditions; and in the traffic pattern with the assigned runway in sight. Once ZZZ2 Center handed us off to ZZZ Control Tower the right seat pilot landed the plane safely to Runway XXL. We immediately advised [the] Maintenance Department and wrote a discrepancy report.The possible causes that we are considering are either moisture or part of the deicing fluid or the combination of both that were trapped inside the pitot tubes lines feeding wrong information to the Air Data Computer.




Synopsis: BD700 Captain reported the loss of the #1 Air Data Computer caused unreliable air data and resulted in an air turnback and precautionary landing at departure airport.
Date: 202002
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just brought into the bagroom. Lithium Detachable Collapsible - No Captain Notification Form; No Wheelchair Tag.




Synopsis: Airline Baggage Room personnel reported Detachable Lithium Ion powered wheelchair arrived in bag room with batteries attached and no required documentation.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working ground; clearance; and Controller In Charge. I had just taxied an air carrier out to XYL. A B737 was taxiing behind the first aircraft on taxiway Foxtrot. I had passed the strip to Local control. I then overheard Local talking to the B737 about an E4 departure because they wanted to go in front of the first aircraft because they were taxiing to slow. I heard Local give the distance remaining and then cleared the B737 for takeoff On XYL at ECHO 4. In the meantime I had a couple more aircraft taxiing out to XYL on Delta to Foxtrot. I heard local again tell the B737 crew no delay because traffic was on final getting closer. After hearing this I started watching B737; they made the right turn down Taxiway Echo and passed E4 and picked up speed. I told local what I was seeing; as they were watching as well. Before the B737 could pick up any more speed or do anything else. Local control told them to stop repeatedly. They then told B737 they were on a taxiway and to turn back on Foxtrot for the full length take off. B737 crew told local they thought they were north of E4 so they were taxiing down echo to the E4 intersection.No recommendations at this time. Everything was handled and caught before anything could happen.


Second narrative: A B737 requested an E4 departure off XYL. I gave the B737 crew the remaining feet wind advisories and cleared them for takeoff from XYL at E4 south west made the turn but appeared to stop short of XYL. Traffic on final was now becoming a factor so I called out to B737 crew told them company traffic on final no delay. At that time I observed the B737 turn south on taxiway E and start to accelerate; I immediately told B737 to stop that he was on a taxiway. The B737 replied they were going to e5 and read the chart wrong. Taxiway E was closed south of runway 9/27 with barricades and equipment on the taxiway. It appeared that B737 would have departed from taxiway E into the closed portion.


Synopsis: B737 fight crew and ATC reported a B737 requested an intersection takeoff; but when the crew began to increase taxi speed; ATC perceived it as the takeoff roll and commanded the crew to stop.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During IFR practice; Approach cleared us for the VOR A approach to ZZZ and to fly the DME arc. Upon turning inbound from the arc was told to proceed straight out on the final approach heading VFR. The final approach course brings you in on an angle between Runway 19 and Runway 9. There are circling only minimums as a result. While inbound from the final approach fix; Tower said 'cleared for the approach to Runway 19'. Also told to report the missed approach as there was no intention to land. Given this is an A approach (not to a runway) specifically mentioning Runway 19 was interpreted as an instruction to circle to Runway 19 if landing. Given we did not land and commenced the missed approach right at minimums; we flew to minumums and then straight out on the missed approach. We were then reprimanded by the Tower for not 'listening up' and proceeding to Runway 19. We never intended to land on 19 so we never proceeded to Runway 19. Flying the approach by the book suggested we did nothing wrong. For a Tower to suggest we were in the wrong for not flying an approach to a specific runway seems to be an incorrect procedure or ambiguous at best. The VOR A approach does not go to a specific runway and one only circles to land from that approach if a landing is the intent. It was clear we were doing a low approach only. I am still not clear what the tower expected nor at what point? I have been flying IFR for over 35 years and never received such a vague instruction on an IFR approach.




Synopsis: SR20 pilot reported while on a VOR-A non-precision approach; specifying intentions to execute the missed approach; being cleared by ATC to land on a specific runway.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C TUL
ATC / advisory: TRACON TUL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The aircraft was being vectored for a visual approach. At 10;000 feet the pilot monitoring asked for a lower altitude. The approach controller then cleared the aircraft from 10;000 feet to 4;000 feet. The pilot flying then began the descent from 10;000 feet to 4;000 feet. While descending the approach controller cleared the aircraft to a lower altitude. The transmission was blocked; however the pilot monitoring responded with a 'Descend to 3;500 feet' This was corrected by the approach controller as 2;500 feet not 3;500 feet. As the descent continued in visual conditions both pilots remarked that the aircraft felt lower than its indicated altitude. The pilot flying reduced the descent rate of the aircraft and both pilots verified the final approach fix and their assigned altitudes matched. Soon after the pilot flying disconnected the autopilot and increased thrust to climb with both pilots realizing the altimeters were incorrectly set. Moments later the approach controller informed the aircraft of a low altitude alert and to climb immediately. Misinterpreting an altimeter setting.Some of the things that could be incorporated to avoid a recurrence of the event is to ask for the full read back if a call is blocked. Another thing to make the altimeter setting stand out is to circle the altimeter setting on the ATIS and to write it on a scratch piece of paper. Finally making sure to repeat the altimeter setting back to the controllers could help mitigate this issue.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to TUL about the time they realized their altimeters were not properly set.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fume event. APU bleed was off during event. The smell; a sweet chemical odor; was present in the aft third of the aircraft. Passengers and crew in the aft galley and the last five rows of the aircraft exhibited the following symptoms immediately coinciding with the fume event: coughing; sore throat; hoarseness; slight headaches. Pack 2 was isolated and fumes dissipated within 5 minutes. No smoke was present. FAs (Flight Attendants) reported that the passengers were feeling better and no emergency or diversion was required. In hindsight; I should have contacted Stat-MD; but did not because the cabin crew reported that everyone was fine and we were busy deviating around weather and descending through moderate turbulence. Our primary concern was to fly the aircraft safely around the weather. No one wanted medical attention upon landing. After landing; one FA continued to cough; felt dizzy; and had numbness and tingling throughout body. She requested medical attention after deplaning and was subsequently taken to the hospital and removed from the next flight. Possible fumes were momentarily noted on ground when APU bleed was selected upon arrival at gate in ZZZ. At the time; I believed them to be outside agents. The aircraft was not recently de-iced.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Flight Attendant and passengers in the aft cabin noticed a chemical odor causing mild head and throat irritation symptoms.