elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute to BOS; #2 Navigation radio head failed [to] tune.  The new frequency on the right side would change but would not switch to the active side.  Since the left ILS frequency could not be set; the RNAV (GPS) 22L was selected; briefed; requested and flown.  When we were cleared for the approach; the approach mode would not select.  Despite numerous attempts to select approach; no guidance was achieved.  Fortunately; we were in VFR conditions and an uneventful visual approach to touchdown was flown.  The FOM briefing flow charts and briefing cards were utilized during the brief.  Neither the First Officer nor I could figure out why the approach mode would not engage.  A maintenance entry was made but the autopilot systems checked normally.  I still have no idea why the approach was not successful.  Systems training on the 737 is poor to nonexistent.  I feel ill equipped to understand or predict what the aircraft will do in any degraded system mode.  A modern multimedia systems training course should be designed and implemented to increase pilot systems knowledge of the aircraft.




Synopsis: A B737-800 Captain reported that the number 2 NAV radio head failed precluding an ILS and subsequently the APP mode would not arm for the RNAV (GPS) approach so a visual approach was completed.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying a STC modified Cessna 182 containing an added sensor ball for IR; E0; etc. Modification included upgraded engine; large alternator. Mission electrical load can be as high as 100 AMPS. Approximately 15 minutes after takeoff; an electrical surge of unknown origin caused alternator field failure and rapid battery drain. [I] first noticed FM communications radio failure; video microwave downlink failure; VHF AM Comm Two failure; glass panel failure and Comm One failure. [I] attempted blind transmission of NORDO status (one local aircraft heard transmission); transponder to 7600. Then [I had] internal light failure enroute airport (five miles away); transponder to 7700. [I] received green light from Tower. Landed uneventfully and turned off runway and shutdown to await Fire Department response. No smoke or fire noted. Aircraft towed to ramp hanger and turned over to maintenance.




Synopsis: A specially equipped C182 during military mission support had alternator failure resulting in the loss of all radios and other equipment so the pilot diverted to a nearby airport after squawking 7600 and 7700 for a green light landing.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Balloon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Lighter-Than-Air; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I had a] normal balloon inflation; weather perfect. [I] flew approximately 15 minutes to 1;000 FT AGL. Control lines to balloon rotator vents became entangled. While attempting to correct vent problem; balloon encountered rapid descent striking surface. Balloon recovered to flight with no damage to persons or property. [I] flew on to landing 30 minutes later.




Synopsis: A Ballon's Rotator Vent Control Lines became entangle resulting the loss of aircraft control and a rapid descent to ground contract. The Pilot recovered and continued the flight.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: PDC stated:  -OOM2 PXV-FMS route installed:  OOM2; PXV as filedOn the departure on the OOM2; ATC asked if we were 'direct PXV?'  We responded affirmative OOM2 'direct PXV'.Memphis Center later on gave us a number to call IND Center to once we landed.The cause of the error on the routing in our FMS came from the translation and duplication of what was on the PDC which was verified by both pilots.  The PDC was understood and viewed as OOM2 direct PXV.It would be nice in the future if the PDC was more explicit rather than vague and showed that V305 needed to be flown in between the SID identifer and the next fix shown.  It is not as straight forward as it could be.


Second narrative: If a transition is anything other then direct after the SID identifier; the next fix should be put in the PDC. If in this case the PDC had shown 'Route -OOM2-V305-PXV-' there would be no question as to what the clearance was; and the PDC and FMS (our routing); would match.


Synopsis: A CRJ7 crew given a PDC clearance of OOM2 PXV..  fly direct PXV after OOM thus missing the WEGEE FIX.  Crew is requested to call ZID on arrival in which ATC asks why they deviated from the SID route to PXV.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ICT.TRACON, KS
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ICT
ATC / advisory: TRACON ICT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was given a point out by the RW Controller of Aircraft Y at 6000 ft; 15 SW of ICT NW bound; not expected to be any conflict at the time of the point out. I was later given control via handoff of Aircraft X; a [business jet] descending out of 10;000 ft 25 miles SW of ICT. Aircraft X was descended on initial contact; to 4000. At that time the Aircraft Y was clearly not a factor. There were other priorities I had to address after the communication with Aircraft X. Aircraft X reported the field in sight roughly 10nm SW of ICT; and Aircraft Y was about 6nm SE of ICT NW bound; still level at 6000.I cleared Aircraft X anticipating his current rate of descent would not ever be a factor for Aircraft Y. I subsequently shipped Aircraft X to the tower and continued to address other priorities. I looked again at Aircraft X and Y as part of my scan; and noticed Aircraft X very slowly descending out of 6000 on a possible conflict course with Aircraft Y; who was being pushed by the wind further south than his initial heading appeared. I called the tower controller who was giving traffic information to Aircraft X on Aircraft Y; as Aircraft X descended what appeared within minimums south of Aircraft Y. The computer generated 'ca' did not go off; nor were either aircraft given any evasive instructions. It appeared not to be a conflict. The 'snitch' computer thought otherwise.No recommendations. In my judgement; Aircraft X should have kept up his initial descent rate. Conflict avoided if he had.




Synopsis: ICT Approach Controller reported a loss of separation that he attributed to an aircraft not descending like he thought it would. Aircraft in question started out with a higher rate of descent; but must have changed when the aircraft got closer to the airport.
Date: 201201
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Flight Instructor and pilot in command of a Cessna 152 doing traffic pattern with my student and practicing forward slip to land; after landing the aircraft safely I personally cleaned the aircraft up for the touch and go phase; by carburetor heat off and flaps up and I added full power. The aircraft stayed on the center line for a little time and I noticed the aircraft going off to the right at around 40 KTS and I told the student again that I have full controls. I added left rudder to keep the aircraft on the center line; instead of aircraft turning to the left it lifted the right wing and at that second I noticed there is something wrong since the wind was reported calm. I idled the aircraft and I called Tower to abort takeoff and again tried to correct it by adding left rudder so the aircraft will not go off the runway. This time the aircraft showed a drift to the left followed by lifting the right wing again. The aircraft slowed down by 4-5 KTS from the rotation speed of 55 KTS and I used the brakes and aerodynamics breaking to slow the aircraft down. The aircraft continued to show a right turn and was starting to leave the runway to the grass. I kept the elevator all the way up so that there will not be any damage to the prop. The aircraft knocked one runway light down and there is no damage to the aircraft. I truly believe that the student might have kept the right rudder on even after I told him that I have the flight controls; there is no other way I can think that could let the aircraft go to the right.




Synopsis: C152 Flight Instructor reports being unable to maintain the runway centerline during a touch and go with a student in the left seat. Left rudder does not correct a right drift and the takeoff is rejected with the aircraft contacting a runway light as it departs the runway.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PSP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft X was issued instructions to taxi to Runway 13R at K for departure. Aircraft X crossed the hold short line; due to the distance from the runway and ambiguous NOTAM procedures.Remarking the hold short line in an appropriate distance from the temporary construction would prevent this situation. Also; having a different designator for the temporary runway would bring more awareness to new hold short markings.




Synopsis: Small transport aircraft crossed hold short line of runway at an intersection. Permanent line was obscured during construction.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 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; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing our anti-ice at the gate in EGLL I requested via ACARS the hold over time. The message we received was telling us that the takeoff is prohibited. The conditions were temperature of 1C SNRA and visibility of 2400M. Under those conditions we all agreed that we should be getting some hold over time and based on experience we knew that we were probably in the neighborhood of an hour. After trying the ACARS procedure two more times with the same result; myself and the IRO using the Hold Over Time (HOT) app on our iPads independently determined the hold over time. Based on the above information and knowing that there was a line up for takeoff on 27R; Heathrow at the time was on a single runway operation; the Captain decided to disregard the ACARS message and use the app HOT. During taxi out the precipitation stopped and then by takeoff turned into rain. When number two for takeoff the Captain asked the IRO to perform a wing check which he did and found all visible surfaces to be clean. We took off inside the HOT determined by the app. Both I and the IRO have used the new procedure before; but this was the Captain's first time which made him question it when the result was obviously wrong.


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


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported deicing at the gate then requesting a hold over time via ACARS which indicated that takeoff was prohibited. They knew this was wrong and went to the iPad app and calculated a 75 minute HOT and departed. Once airborne they discovered that this type of conflict should have been resolved by contacting the Duty Manager.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cargo fire in the forward compartment. Diverted to ZZZ1. Fire was extinguished before landing and was able to land without incident and taxi to the gate. [At] ZZZ1 [aircraft was inspected] and temp reading upon landing [was] 140 degrees. Aircraft X was cleared to taxi to the gate. FO (First Officer) did an inspection and did not see an indication of flames. Waiting on full inspection. Contract [maintenance] and fire department inspected plane at the gate. No dangerous goods on board. Crew fired the forward bottle.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported cargo fire during cruise followed by diversion.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Liferaft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I received a [Inspection Work] item to check a raft installation on a 737 which had recently had the [cabin retrofit] completed. The [Inspection Work] item asked us to check installation of the life rafts for correct orientation. After looking at the rafts we discovered that all were installed wrong which were corrected. Which when installed wrong the inflation D ring is at the bottom so when the raft door is opened it looks like you are to pull the d ring to help you remove the raft. One was in the wrong spot as per part numbers on the raft. We corrected this problem as well. We also noticed during the opening and closing of the raft door that if the bin doors happen to be open; that the raft door will hit the bin doors and not drop down enough to remove the raft and are concerned about the potential risk of not being able to get access to the raft in an emergency situation. I know during normal operation the bin doors will be closed but if an incident happens will the bin doors stay closed?




Synopsis: B737 Maintenance Technician reported observing incorrect installation of life rafts on the aircraft.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Gear collapsed on landing. Noticed after landing that the landing gear fuse had blown before the gear was locked down.




Synopsis: Bonanza 35 pilot experienced a landing gear failure on landing. Post flight evaluation revealed that the landing gear fuse had blown before the gear was locked down.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Yesterday; [Operations Control] called me to inform me that a white powder had come out of a box at the Post Office and sent a few people to the hospital. I was then called into a meeting with XX; XY; and XZ; regarding the event. The Post Office had been evacuated; so I gave them the numbers of a few of the clerks and was later able to acquire the Post Master's cell phone number. I then went and spoke with XA who also had to fill out a report. The aircraft was put into quarantine as the substance was brought over on either Flight XXXX or XXXY. [In the afternoon]; the aircraft was lifted from quarantine and the Post Office was reopened and I was allowed to finish the day. The substance was found to be horse medicine. The clerks on [Post Office] informed me that it was poisonous to humans and 5 people had been sent and released from the hospital. A safety team was being brought in today to further clear the mail affected by the powder. The box carrying the medicine had been broken and/or was poorly packaged.




Synopsis: Airline Captain reported air cargo container of Class 9 Hazmat leaked white powder due to improper packaging during delivery to recipient.