elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Location: RBV.VOR, NJ
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Doing a ferry flight to LGA. Captain is flying and I am monitoring. Descending into LGA on the KORRY4 arrival; Approach gives us holding instructions. 'Hold southwest of the RBV VOR as published. That VOR was pretty close (like 3 minutes away). Captain looks up the hold and programs it into the FMS. I'm still busy on the radio. I see the hold he programmed is southwest of the RBV VOR so I agree with it. We cross over the VOR and enter a left turn for the holding pattern. ATC advises us that the published hold is right turns. I look up the published hold on my Jeppesen app and sure enough its right turns with a slightly different inbound course. We manually fly a couple laps around the hold with right turns and the correct inbound course before we continued to LGA. Once we are on the ground I discuss what happened with the captain. He tells me that he was using CHARTS + by NavBlue and could not locate the published hold on the chart. He showed me the chart and I could not immediately identify the published hold there either. He chose the first listed/default hold in the FMS for RBV. It was southwest of the VOR; and usually that first one is the published one. Once we examined the charts for a few more minutes we finally located the published hold. It's on the left side of the chart with a giant block of text whereas the rest of the holds are boxed on the right hand side of the chart. So the violation was flying the incorrect hold instead of the published hold.What caused this? I would say the confusing layout of charts + KORRY4 arrival plate. The hold can be identified easily on the jeppesen plates. Also being rushed (close to RBV when given the clearance) and busy on the radio; we didn't have time to figure it out before we were in the hold.




Synopsis: First Officer reported entering a published holding pattern in the wrong direction due to confusing chart layout.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were level at 22;000 in IMC when ATC cleared us to FL400. As we were climbing through FL230 I heard loud; rapid; snapping sounds. I asked the First Officer if he also heard it? He replied that he did. We tried to figure out its cause when I noticed a strong electrical burning smell. I asked him if also could smell it which initially he replied no. Then a resounding yes! He quickly donned his mask while I declared an emergency with an immediate turn back to the airfield. The First Officer turned toward the departure airport while I ran the Smoke; Fire and Fumes Checklist. The First Officer told me that he had momentarily seen smoke coming from the glareshield. At this time the smoke and snapping sound had stopped. And the fumes had dissipated. I called the flight attendants and gave then the emergency landing signal. We continued our precautionary landing with the emergency equipment standing by. We landed and arrived at the gate without further incident.


Second narrative: Continuing the climb with Engine Anti-Ice on; at approximately FL240 we heard a series of pops coming from behind the instrument panel. This was followed by a strong electrical odor. As I was looking around; I saw a momentary wisp of white/grey-ish smoke coming from up from the area between the windshield and the glare shield. I immediately donned my mask; while the Captain declared an emergency requesting lower and a turn. We executed a turn back to the airport and an emergency descent. The fumes did subside as we made our way back.


Synopsis: A B737-700 climbing through FL230 developed an electrical burning smell accompanied by a momentary bluish/grey smoke near the windshield; so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were flying through Kansas City's airspace we were using the CPDLC (Controller Pilot Datalink Communications). We were flying the JHAWK 6 Arrival into MCI. The airport was landing south so we briefed and setup to cross RUGBB at 12;000 feet. for the airport landing south. ATC sent us a message on the ACARS CPDLC to cross JHAWK at 12;000 feet. We acknowledged the clearance and with all the other CPDLC messages we were receiving we missed changing the altitude restriction over RUGBB to crossing 12;000 feet. over JHAWK. After crossing JHAWK I realized the mistake and continued our descent to 12;000 feet without any other conflicts.This was a valuable lesson learned. I need to verify my clearance and fly the aircraft first. It was a little overwhelming with all of the ATC messages we were receiving on the CPDLC.


Second narrative: ATC was controlling using CPDLC (Controller Pilot Datalink Communications). We had been receiving one CPDLC message every five to ten seconds for over a minute. Captain was PF (Pilot Flying) and also answering all CPDLC messages. As PM (Pilot Monitoring); it was difficult to read all messages and keep up with PF as he zipped through the messages trying to comply. On the JHAWK it says landing south expect RUGBB at 12;000 feet and this is how the FMC was set up. After passing JHAWK; we noticed the message said cross JHAWK at 12;000 feet (which is the clearance landing north; but MCI was landing south. We complied with SID and crossed RUGBB at 12;000 feet. But; we did not comply with the CPDLC instruction to cross JHAWK at 12;000 feet. Looking back; there is no way we could have crossed JHAWK at 12;000 feet regardless. ATC never said a word to us about any of this.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported missing an altitude restriction on descent into MCI; citing the high volume of CPDLC messages as contributing.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: A new panel was ordered from shop. The panel holes from shop were too small and did not align with the structure. Holes were sized up on the bench; and were still too small. While installing panel holes were so far off it needed to be drilled up on aircraft. Was unaware any wiring was behind structure. Was unaware any damaged occurred while installing panel.     Holes in the panel did not align with the holes in the structure. Holes in panel were incorrect size for the rivnuts. Holes in panel already drilled up to proper size.




Synopsis: Maintenance was unaware of wiring behind structure when drilling out holes to install panel.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower 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
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am a little rusty because I haven't flown much over the past 12 months.  We had a tailwind on final; but as ZZZ frequently does; they asked us to keep our speed up and maintain 180 knots until ZZZZZ (the final approach fix on XL ILS).  I had configured to flaps 10 and gear down before ZZZZZ.  After we crossed ZZZZZ I finished configuring but the plane did not want to slow down after flaps 25; possibly because we hit a gust or went through a shear zone.  I was so distracted by the amount of difficulty I was having getting the plane to slow down so I could call for flaps 30 that I didn't realize we were lowering the flaps to 30 just as we passed through 1;000 feet.The tailwind on final;  ZZZ's request for us to keep our speed up; my relative lack of proficiency and my not paying close enough attention to our altitude were the causes for my error.I will start configuring even earlier when contending with a tailwind on final.


Second narrative: After fully configuring the aircraft for landing; I realized that we were below 1;000 feet.A tail wind; ATC assigning 210 knots on final; and a lack of recent experience all combined played a role in my late recognition of configuring below 1;000 feet.Configuring the aircraft earlier; and paying closer attention to procedures.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an unstabilized approach due to lack of recent flying experience; weather; and ATC instructions.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMA; Special Use CAPE A
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared into and operating within the CAPE A ATCAA (ATC Assigned Airspace); within a block altitude of surface to FL300. He is supposed to remain within the confines of the airspace at all times. Aircraft Y was a TPA arrival to the north of the CAPE A ATCAA; and had a crossing restriction of ZINGR at 17;000.  I transferred communication of Aircraft Y to F11 (Orlando Approach) in a timely fashion; and continued working.  While attending to other aircraft at the sector; Aircraft X keyed up and stated 'We are finished in the area and would like to cancel services'; or something to that effect.  As my eyes scanned back to where he should be; I immediately noticed that the aircraft was well outside of his assigned airspace; and was now descending directly towards Aircraft Y; who was now descending out of 17;000 feet and into MCO approaches airspace.  I instructed Aircraft X to amend altitude to 17;000 due to traffic; and advised him that he was well outside of the CAPE A ATCAA and to fly heading 180 to try and get him back into the appropriate airspace as quickly as possible.  Within the next target 'hit' or two; Aircraft X's altitude continued to descend thru 17;000; and I told him to stop his descent immediately and advised that there was traffic directly underneath him at 16;000. The targets merged with approximately 200 feet between them. This all happened within the span of 15-20 seconds; with me advising the D-side position to call MCO approach and apprise them of the situation. Aircraft X should never have left his assigned airspace; and did not comply with any altitude clearance given to try and prevent a collision; leading to an extremely unsafe situationThere never would have been an event if Aircraft X had remained within his assigned airspace as cleared. It's nearly impossible to predict when and where a 'spill out' like that can occur; given the nature of their maneuvers; speed and altitude changes are while they operate within said airspace.  If he had remained inside the assigned ATCAA there would be no incident




Synopsis: ZMA Center Controller reported a spillout resulting in a NMAC with an air carrier.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Captain's Oxygen Mask on Aircraft X was opaque (could not use visually). I wrote up the discrepancy. Maintenance came out to the aircraft and wiped it clear with an alcohol sanitizer wipe. I reminded him that this was not the procedure that I had watched Maintenance perform over 25 times before; but he assured me that this method was correct. Establish Maintenance procedures that are consistent and will not further damage the O2 mask. Change SOP to mandate a visual inspection of O2 mask prior to each flight.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported disagreement with maintenance procedures used to clear an opaque Captains O2 Mask Visor.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was being operated by the Ground Control Station at the AFB. The aircraft had an operational mission that was used for the transition from RDR to FHU within the FAA transitional COA.  The weather deteriorated at the destination; so the aircraft was turned around to return to RDR.  Upon turning around the operational mission in the aircraft was updated and the aircraft started a turn back to the south. Upon noticing the route deviation; the incorrect routing programmed into flight management system and the aircraft turning; manual control of aircraft was then taken to get back on route. ATC notified the deviation of the aircraft and the aircraft was already going back in the correct direction.  In order to prevent the same deviation from happening the missions sent to the aircraft are verified further upon returning to the home station.




Synopsis: MQ9 pilot reports turning the aircraft around to return to base; when the original mission is canceled due to weather. When the operational mission in the aircraft was updated; the aircraft started a turn back to the south. This was quickly detected by the pilot and corrected manually.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inside the terminal walking to our airplane we noticed an older man who appeared to be intoxicated. Later we became aware that he was going to be one of our passengers when one of the FA's (Flight Attendant) told us he was on our flight. She alerted us to that he was drunk and that he could not go. As we were discussing this a [Supervisor] comes down to the airplane and told us that the man in question had been communicating with the airport police and the airport police told the [Supervisor] that the passenger in question was not intoxicated; but had been to detox and that was why he acted differently. With this information in hand we saw no reason for why he should be denied the flight. We depart with no issue but halfway through the flight we get a call from one of the flight attendants. The passenger in question had become unruly and had asked for alcohol. He said that if he did not get alcohol he could have a stroke. At this point the FA call was more of an informational call to keep us updated on what was going on in the passenger cabin. 10 minutes later the flight attendant called us again using the emergency call button and then tells us that the passenger stood up and was interfering and was pulling his shirt off. He had also earlier expressed to the passenger next to him that he was considering suicide. As we understood it during the call there was a dead heading pilot and passenger that helped to restrain the passenger.  After the flight attendant call we expeditiously diverted to ZZZ. Authorities and medical assistants met the airplane. The passenger was taken off the airplane. Unruly; unpredictable passenger.It is a hard call. The police said he was not intoxicated. The [Supervisor] relayed the information. We were busy with readying the aircraft for safe flight. We trusted both the Police and the [Supervisor].




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported an intoxicated passenger; whose erratic behavior in flight resulted in the flight diverting to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Reverser Actuator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I noticed hydraulic fluid leaking during my exterior inspection; 1 drip [every] 2 seconds; from the bottom of left engine with puddle of fluid on ramp. Maintenance was notified and discrepancy logged. Mechanic came into cockpit and said the engine was no longer leaking; and the fluid was fuel. I was confident the fluid was not fuel and went down to the ramp to further inspect engine wondering if the Mechanic even addressed the log item. The leak was still occurring at the same rate and had never stopped. The Mechanic had signed off the discrepancy stating; checked found no leaks. We called Maintenance back out to aircraft and another Mechanic found a hydraulic reverser actuator leaking. The left reverser was deactivated with no further leaks. Flight departed uneventfully.


Second narrative: On walk around First Officer noticed hydraulic fluid leaking from the left engine and saw a puddle of fluid under the engine cowling. Got Mechanic involved to check for problem. Mechanic came to the cockpit and told us that it was fuel residue and that is not leaking anymore. First Officer went down after the Mechanic left the cockpit and saw that it was still leaking and it was not fuel but hydraulic fluid. I called Maintenance again and they came and I made them open the cowling and they noticed that one of the reverser hydraulic actuator is leaking. They fixed the problem by deferring the left engine reverser actuator and signed it off.


Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician did not properly locate or identify the crew write-up for a fluid leak. The flight crew reconfirmed the leak and again documented the defect. Another Maintenance Technican identified the reverser actuator as the fluid source; and deactivated the actuator per the Minimum Equipment List.