elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the [Flight Attendant] B on our second leg of the day from ZZZ to ZZZ1. After the demo I was doing compliance to the back galley and around row 26 (to the galley) I smelled strong fumes with the engines running. I asked the [Flight Attendant] C if she smelled it and she said yes. Then the [Flight Attendant] D came back and also said she smelled fumes. The [Flight Attendant] C called the pilots to let them know that we smelled the fumes; but had not smelled anything on our first leg from ZZZ2 to ZZZ. We also reported it to the [Flight Attendant] A and he came back and confirmed the odor. The pilots informed us we would be going back to the gate; but there was not a gate available. We were exposed to the fumes for probably 30 minutes. I walked to the front of the cabin where it was better just to get out of the concentrated area. Due to the FAA requirements there was an odor on the plane and as a company requirement we have to report it.




Synopsis: Flight attendants reported informing flight crew of strong fumes odor during taxi. Flight crew decided to return to gate.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after the sterile light came off; we received a call from the back. The flight attendant described a dog that was out of control. The Captain informed me of the situation. The dog was a large lab size dog.Only a few minutes passed before we got a second call from the back. The Captain gave me control of the aircraft; and ATC communications. After the call; the Captain informed me that the flight attendant was frantic; and the situation was getting worse. The dog's owner was apparently not in complete control of the animal. The passengers around the dog and the flight attendant were fearful for their safety.We discussed the situation; and began a phone patch with dispatch. A third call came from back (perhaps 2 minutes from last call.) We were leveling at FL250 (I think). The dog was out of control. The dog had attempted to bite passengers; and / or flight attendants. The Captain was managing the call to dispatch and the flight attendants. At some point the flight attendants were able to get the animal locked into one of the lavatories. At this point the comfort of our passengers had been compromised; and the safety of our passengers and or our crew was in jeopardy. The Captain and I discussed our options of continuing on [several hour-long] flight to [our destination]; returning to [our departure airport]; or diverting to another field. Dispatch; the Captain; and I concurred that the safest course of action was to return to [our departure airport].ATC informed us that they would be [giving us landing priority]. We would have [notified them] anyways due to possibility of overweight landing. After further planning; it was determined that we would be landing overweight. Dispatch contacted [Operations Control]; and sent the calculations for a safe overweight landing. We chose to land on the longest runway. No further incident.




Synopsis: First Officer of a large passenger transport reported a dog becoming uncontrollable in the cabin area; threatening the flight crew and passengers.
Date: 202108
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
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: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After taking high speed runway turnoff NN off 8R at IAH; Tower instructed us to join SF. There was a line of aircraft on NA eastbound and both my First Officer and I missed that NN becomes SF. I followed the aircraft thinking they were going to join SF. We had originally planned to exit at NK and I turned eastbound on NA thinking SF was next right turn taxiway ahead. We informed ground control of our mistake and doubled back on NB and then joined SF southbound by their instruction. There was no conflict with other aircraft. The signage for NN turning into SF is nonexistent and in my runway turnoff I mistook and assumed SF would be ahead off NA. It was my mistake.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain taxiing in IAH reported they turned on to the wrong taxiway due to a lack of taxiway signage.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The problem occurred on short final when a small gust of wind made me slightly above a stable altitude; then above the runway number/threshold I floated in ground effect until half of the runway was up and decided to go around. If I had touched down at that point I would have run off the runway. After deciding to go around; the OAT was too hot to climb at a normal rate and there were 3 total people in the aircraft making the aircraft's climb rate lower than normal. These factors caused the aircraft to not climb enough to clear the tree line so I maneuvered through a gap in the tree and 100-200ft AGL over houses to avoid crashing and stalling the aircraft.After analyzing the situation; I realize I should've made the go around decision at the gust of wind and/or at the runway threshold to safely clear the trees.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported that during a go-around the aircraft's poor climb performance resulted in close proximity to trees and houses.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D DVT; Class E P50
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I am currently flying out of an airport which is very busy with flight school traffic. My last flight departed with a turn to the North West under the Class B shelf. Traffic in the area was busy as it normally is but I was somewhat comfortable with knowing that most all the traffic could be visually spotted with the assistance of my ADSB in. I was passing about 1500 feet below and between two slower aircraft headed in my general direction with a good visual on both. When I was about a mile from the aircraft on my left he made an abrupt 270 degree descending turn directly towards me causing a rapid closure rate. Fortunately we missed but it was way to close of a call for my comfort. I am not sure he ever saw me given he was descending and I was below him. I did get his N number from my ADSB in data and looked it up to see it belonged to one of the flight schools here. I called the school and talked to the head flight instructor. I was curious why this student did not do a clearing turn and why he did not see me on his ADSB in. I was surprised at his response that 'not all our aircraft have ADSB in'. I said as inexpensive as these systems are it would make sense for training aircraft doing maneuvers under the Class B shelf to have these. It was only a couple of years ago that they had two training aircraft collide just north of this airport. My phone call may or may not have had any beneficial effect. Any thoughts or advice?




Synopsis: A Pilot reported a NMAC with an aircraft from a flight school whose aircraft are not equipped with ADSB.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival our gate was occupied and we were instructed to hold. While stopping the aircraft it was noted that the brakes were very grabby as I brought the airplane to a complete stop. After being assigned a new gate we taxied to the new location and waited for the marshalling crew to arrive. Again the brakes grabbed several times as the airplane stopped. As we arrived at our final spot and the marshallers gave me the stop sign I was still a little concerned about the grabbiness of the brakes; so after initially setting the parking brake I released it and held them manually and started to let off a bit. I felt the aircraft move a bit and immediately reapplied the brake. At this time; however; the rampers were putting the chocks in and the aircraft rolled a bit. I talked to the ramp supervisor and the vulnerability of the ramper if the aircraft moves while they are near the wheels was discussed. I realize I should have waited until the chocks were signaled in to do any testing of the brakes and will be much more mindful of the safety issue involved in the future.


Second narrative: Flight was being marshaled into the gate. This arrival was a last minute gate change and there were only 3 [rampers] available for the arrival - 2 wingwalkers and 1 marshaller. Once the aircraft reached the stop mark; the Marshaller gave the stop sign (crossed wands) to the flight deck. The Marshaller then walked out of sight of the flight deck to chock the nose gear since the other two [rampers] were wingwalking and in position to chock the main gear. As the Marshaller was getting ready to place the chocks under the nose gear tires; the brakes were released and the aircraft started to roll backwards. The marshaller jumped clear and then the flight deck realized that they were rolling and reset the brake.


Synopsis: A B737 Captain and the ground person detailed to install the nose wheel chocks after gate arrival; describe an uncommanded brake release causing the aircraft to roll and the person placing the chocks to jump clear.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During landing roll; normal manual brake application produced a strong pull to left. As Pilot Flying; I compensated using differential braking and rudder pedals to keep aircraft on runway while decelerating. The Captain took over controls to exit onto D7. I mentioned the abnormal challenge to centerline control; and said it might be the brakes. He tested both wheel brakes at taxi speed; and response seemed normal. I said we should call out Maintenance to gate and he agreed.At gate; Maintenance discovered that #4 brake was cold. The associated brake hydraulic supply coupling was not fully seated; rendering the brake inoperative. It appeared that a recent brake change in ZZZ1 on that assembly was not completed correctly. The ZZZ Maintenance Personnel reconnected the supply and tested the brakes; yielding normal operation. The Captain wrote up in the logbook that the aircraft pulled left on landing. I am grateful that we discovered this on landing; with a light Passenger load; low approach speed; and manual braking. A heavy [Rejected Takeoff] on a short runway would have produced a very different outcome.It appears that a safety critical system was not properly returned to service. The procedure and personnel involved need to be looked at closely; as well as any work performed by them.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported faulty brakes during landing roll out.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P48.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON LUF
Second aircraft: Other
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the let down into the Phoenix area; East North East of Lake Pleasant; I had a near miss with a guy hanging from a parasail. I was talking to Phoenix Approach Control at the time and had just been issued a frequency change to contact Luke Approach Control. My eyes were temporarily in the cockpit while dialing in the new radio frequency and I did not see the parasail until alerted by a passenger in the back seat. We were in a highly-traveled corridor used by commercial and general aviation aircraft and the near miss occurred as the aircraft was descending through 6100 ft. I estimated vertical separation of 100 ft and lateral separation of 300 ft when the parasail was spotted off our left wing; close enough to make out the man's facial features. I reported the near miss to Luke Approach Control.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported a near miss with an individual operating a parasail in the vicinity of PHX.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When crosschecking the [line selected] TXMEX RNAV STAR into Houston; I discovered that the 280 and 210 hard speeds at TXMEX and CRVZA; respectively; were not displayed. I contacted the Dispatcher to see if he knew why? He returned an ACARS message advising the flight planning software team said the program only does mach speeds; knots can't be entered.In any case the commercial producers of the database need to be informed so they can include the missing speeds in the next revision.

Callback: The actual problem was that the FMC was not displaying (and; therefore; autoflight would be unable to comply with) the mandatory speed restrictions at TXMEX and CRVZA. He also advised that he has flown both B757 and B767 aircraft on the STAR and both failed to program the restrictions.



Synopsis: A B757 Captain advised that the FMC database on both fleets failed to display the airspeed crossing restrictions at TXMEX and CRVZA published on the TXMEX RNAV STAR into IAH.
Date: 202002
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B DCA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Observer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Daughter was playing in park with toy [UAV]. Previous hops had not reached more than 20 or so feet. The toy launched; immediately zoomed to 100 feet; then started a steady climb to at least 1500 feet when visuals were lost [as the UAV was] drifting west toward Reagan airport and Pentagon.




Synopsis: Observer reported a 'toy' UAV operated by his daughter failed to respond to controls and flew toward DCA airport at approximately 1500' AGL.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: External air needed for start. Had minor display problem on air synoptic requiring discussion with Maintenance. Problem fixed and continued with start. Tug was not visible after start; but thought to be attached to aircraft. Completing External Air Start Checklist; felt aircraft moving forward. Immediately stopped aircraft. Asked [Ramp] on intercom if tug was pulling aircraft forward. No one on com. Tug was not hooked to aircraft. Someone pulled chocks after external start. I believe normal checklist flow with Maintenance due to display problem had the effect of disrupting procedure. Distraction. Abnormal events during air start procedure. Slow down. Insure standard phraseology used.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported ground personnel pulled the chocks without coordination with the cockpit and the aircraft rolled forward before the Captain applied brakes; endangering ground personnel and equipment.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Following an uneventful flaps 10 takeoff; on climbout after reaching 3;000 feet [AGL] and beginning to accelerate; the flaps stopped responding to flap lever commands at the flaps 5 position. Following completion of QRH procedures and consultation with Dispatch; maintenance; my First Officer; and the cabin crew; a return to and landing at the takeoff field was made after burning fuel down below maximum landing weight. The Flaps 15 landing and taxi back to the gate were also uneventful. A logbook entry was made.We had a lot of difficulty getting a VHF phone patch with Dispatch and maintenance to work reliably using [company communications] local frequency. After much frustration we resorted to using just the ACARS to communicate with the company. Also; I distinctly recall during simulator training flying this exact same scenario. Back then we were taught that we could get Flaps 15 landing data from dispatch. Last night Dispatch informed me that they do not have; and cannot provide Flaps 15 landing data. We then calculated our own corrections using the appropriate charts in the QRH.


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


Synopsis: A B737 crew was not able to retract the flaps from the flaps 5 position after takeoff so they circled to burn down to landing weight and landed uneventfully. Communication with the company was difficult.