elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a training flight the Helicopter was flying right traffic patterns for Runway XY. The [helicopter] was completing a steep approach to the aiming point markings of Runway XY when a Twin Turboprop passed off the right side of the runway executing a go around. Radio calls were made on all legs of the pattern by the [Instructor]. Both instructor and student do not recall hearing any transmissions from the Twin Turboprop. It was noted that Com 1 in the helicopter was not functioning. This occurrence was used as a teachable moment for equipment cross check; situational awareness and collision avoidance. A safety meeting was held to discuss the event and collaborate with other pilots. A NOTAM was issued to change the flow of helicopter traffic.




Synopsis: Helicopter instructor experiences an NMAC with a Twin Turboprop on final approach. The helicopter was on a steep approach and making position reports; while the King Air was on the straight in ILS and apparently not making position reports. The Twin Turboprop pilot detected the helicopter and went around to the right side.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I'm writing to advise of an interesting event. Aircraft X; ZZZ-ZZZ1. Cruising at FL 380; at XA20 CT; we got an instantaneous #2 Engine LO Quantity 20% and flashing white box. All other oil indications were normal; as well as engine. Prior to event; oil quantities were normal and matched closely. We assessed that we could end up single engine soon; and started looking for nearest suitable airports; if we needed to do that. Additionally; started to review QRC/QRH in preparation for a possible engine failure or shutdown. We coordinated with ZZZ2 Center; for a lower altitude and airspeed. Assigned FL 350; then soon after FL 320. Slowed to74. At XA30 CT; contacted (Company) Dispatch and advised them of our situation; also short conversation with Maintenance. He advised; follow QRH guidance.Top Of Descent; followed soon after; and we continued our assessment of possible landing airports as we monitored the #2 engine. The quantity slowly went down; but would tick up sporadically; then continue down; very slow. While on the arrival branch point; we decided to request preferential coordination direct to ZZZ1. Final approach it was reading 10%; then went to 6% at landing. Landed ZZZ1 Runway XXR uneventfully. While taxi back to terminal; it increased to 20% and remained there at shutdown. Our constant question was; 'what is the limit; zero; or a predetermined %; when the motor would fail?'The next day; I called Maintenance to ascertain if they had found anything out. Maintenance said they were still looking at it with GE Tech Support and had come across Main Bearing and Main Bearing Seal failure; but it wasn't definitive yet. He did tell me that oil was bypassing into another container or void space where it shouldn't go.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an Engine Oil Quantity Lo annunciation while at cruise. The flight crew continued the flight to the destination airport while monitoring oil quantity.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When we arrived ground personnel notified us that the valet bags were not on the airplane; the weight and balance showed 21 bags should have been loaded. Due to this we flew the whole flight with the airplane out of CG limits by the weight of 21 valet bags (420 LBS). We actually were at forward CG and had to load 500 LBS of ballast on the flight to be within CG using the numbers on the weight and balance. The ground crew failed to load the bags. This is something that can cause a catastrophic event. A little bit more weight missing and we could be uncontrollable. The threats here lay with the ground crew that claimed they loaded the bags but didn't. In this situation aircraft is out of CG and we are now flying in an unproven flight envelope. Since the crew is not loading the aircraft themselves we are depending on the ground crew to do there job correctly. Mistakes happen; so I would say they need to have ground personnel check on each other and have a set way to do this.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain is informed upon arrival that the valet bags were not put aboard and the weight and balance is not accurate and the aircraft may have been out of CG limits.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
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: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On transition from Center to MCO approach; we were given a clearance to cross BAIRN int at FL110 on the BAIRN4 arrival. We had just switched to MCO approach while we were leveling at the assigned fix at the assigned altitude. As soon as we checked in; MCO approach alerts us to VFR traffic at twelve o'clock and four miles at FL105 and to climb and maintain FL120. In the seconds between the notification and execution of the order; I simultaneously scanned the ND and peered out the windscreen to visualize traffic while reaching to dial in the newly assigned altitude. As I pulled FL120 to command Open Climb; we got the RA to climb. We performed the memory items and executed. The last I saw the red traffic indicated by TCAS; it was 400 ft. below us. There is no reason this should have occurred. MIA and MCO controllers should have coordinated and issued an altered clearance well ahead of time to prevent the close incursion. This aircraft didn't just appear at the altitude; he was mode C equipped and the whole situation could have been prevented had the controllers done their jobs. Instead; and aircraft carrying approximately 140 souls onboard was forced to perform an evasive maneuver to avoid collision. Suggestions: ATC needs to pay attention 100% of the time and anticipate where aircraft are and where aircraft will soon be. I'm actually at a loss as to prevention. ATC is usually very good; especially MIA and MCO. But one moment of distraction by a controller can be catastrophic.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported an NMAC event under ATC control during arrival.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC cleared us for a different approach and runway. The time it took to program the FMC caused us to be slightly delayed in descending to our next altitude. ATC asked us if we were descending via to make sure and we quickly got right back on profile.The late change to the RNAV Visual 19R approach was the reason. The FMC doesn't load all the altitudes for you so you have to manually put them in and that little bit of extra time was just enough to make us late descending.




Synopsis: The time required for the B737-700 flight crew to program an ATC assigned approach/runway change prevented them from initiating a descent required by their RNAV STAR assignment.
Date: 201510
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the 'B' flight attendant. Boarding began normally until the pilots started the APU and applied conditioned air to the cabin; APU air or ground air. At that time the aft cabin began to fill with an acrid smoke. I called the cockpit crew on the interphone and notified the FO. Initially he said he could not see or smell the smoke from his position in the cockpit so I told him to get out of his seat and look. Subsequently; the Captain; via the 'A' flight attendant; ordered an evacuation using the forward entry door and jet bridge. Passengers were slow to respond and 75% refused to go without their carryon baggage. Which left those of us in the aft cabin forced to breathe the acrid smoke for an extended period as the evacuation was painfully slow and disjointed. The passengers in the aft were becoming frantic since they were coughing and inhaling the fumes. I had already cracked the doors. The initial direction from the Captain and PAs by the 'A' flight attendant were nonstandard and not effective in moving the passengers off the aircraft. I had to call the 'A' for more information on how the evacuation was to be conducted. I spoke on the PA and tried to get passengers moving and leaving luggage behind. Once the passengers were off; maintenance and fire department personnel arrived and looked over the aircraft. We were swapped into another aircraft and continued our day. This was; in my judgement; contrary to our stated corporate priorities. The crew should have been pulled and debriefed; as the evacuation was poorly conducted.Adherence to standard evacuation procedures and PAs would have a made a difference. Had fire broken out during the evacuation due to passenger luggage cluttering the aisle; this would have ended very badly. We were never debriefed.




Synopsis: B737-700 Flight Attendant reported smoke and fumes in the cabin prompted an evacuation at the gate that did not go smoothly.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Operations delayed flight without Dispatcher contact. Swap was available. Swapped and revealed over delay.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported aircraft was delayed without contact to dispatch.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A mother and her two kids flying together in first class. The son was operating his ceiling lights or air vents and when he sat back down on his seat his elbow hit his drinking glass sitting on the console and the glass broke/shattered to pieces cutting his arm. His mother alerted me the he was bleeding on his arm. I; put on some plastic gloves and we brought him to the forward lavatory and wiped his arm with wet and dry towels and then wiped it with sanitation wipes to clean off area. Then put 3 band aids over the cut then put a cloth towel and he held it on for a while. At the end of flight when taxiing to the gate I got up to check on him and he was OK. The band aids were on; and the mother was going to the airport clinic to see if anything more could be done or what I had already done was good enough.His arm hit his glass on the console which shattered cutting his arm around his elbow. Kids sitting in the first class seats should be served with the plastic cups and not the glass cups!




Synopsis: An air carrier Flight Attendant reported a young child accidently broke a glass and cut his arm.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I decided to review OTS (Out of Service) on [our online system log] for status of [Program] Mod Evaluation visits at various stations.Apparently this aircraft may not have been scheduled for evaluation of the [Program] Modification because [Engineering Order X] is not applicable to it.While the applicability status of this particular [Engineering Order] revision is true; I questioned what other [Engineering Order] revisions might apply to this aircraft.According to [the log; the inspection] was accomplished at ZZZ [many months prior].By the basic criteria applied to other aircraft; Aircraft X may fit the criteria for evaluation of the [Program] Modification.Review of the OTS History reports indicated that this aircraft has not had said evaluation complied with at any [company] maintenance station.If this condition is true; this aircraft needs to be evaluated in the same manner as all other aircraft that were modified at ZZZ are being inspected.Apparently selection of the aircraft requiring evaluation of the [Program] Modification may have been based upon status of later [Engineering Order] revisions.[Engineering Order X] is an active revision.[Engineering Order] revisions [Y] and [Z] are marked as 'retired' and not viewable in the Currently Active [Engineering Order] search online.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported that aircraft may not have been evaluated as required due to confusing maintenance orders.
Date: 201507
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: [Flight] was released with MEL - main gear uplock springs. This required a speed restriction of 270K/M82 that [computer software] complied with on the release. However; after takeoff; crew sent the following message;WITH MELXX32D IT HAS US AT 270/.82 CORRECT.... AT OUR CURRENT WT WE HAVE TO FLY AT 280KTS TO STAY ABOVE STALL BAR. THIS OPS RESTRICTION CAN NOT B COMPLYED W/ AT OUR WEIGHT.I advised the Dispatch chief of this issue. Obviously the flight will maintain a safe speed while enroute; regardless of the MEL requirements. Sabre programming should review the weight/performance issues with this MEL.




Synopsis: An air carrier Dispatcher reported a flight was dispatched with an MEL mandating a speed restriction that the crew could not comply with.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: ATR 72
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Freezing rain was reported at ZZZ. Company ramp was covered by a sheet of ice and the flight crew reported to the Ramp Lead of the hazard. [The next day]; the ice was still present on the ramp. [The following day]; a layer of snow was present on the ramp; covering the previous day's layer of ice. As I was walking from the Company building to the aircraft I slipped on the ice and fell on my back. I was wearing non-slip winter boots when the fall occurred. Taxiing into the ramp to park the aircraft the crew noted that the ramp's braking action was nil; and the aircraft slid forward when the propellers were brought into feather for engine shut-down; with the parking brake set. Several of the Company ramp personnel had complained of slipping and falling on the ramp this same day. The flight crew has contacted the Company Ramp Manager safety department several times via email regarding the unnecessarily hazardous conditions allowed [to] persist on the Company ramp. There has been no attempt to remove the ice and snow from the ramp.




Synopsis: Captain reported slipping on icy ramp which had previously been reported as a hazard.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: Cowling
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Conducted a normal preflight inspection and found no abnormalities with the aircraft. After a normal takeoff; climb; and approximately 20 minutes of cruise flight; I noticed that the bottom cowling on the left engine had come loose and was now only secured by one fastener instead of the normal three. I elected to air return to [departure airport] as it was the closest suitable airport with facilities to make necessary repairs and given that the cowling was relatively secure given that two fasteners were no longer secure (i.e it didn't appear to be getting any worse); I elected to not land at one of the closer; smaller airports. After an uneventful approach to landing; maintenance personnel discovered that the cowling had been secured improperly with three of the six fasteners improperly locked. In-flight departure of a cowling could be potentially catastrophic to engine/flight control components as well as persons and objects on the ground and greater care should be taken by all parties involved to ensure they are properly secured. Pilots should take extra time during pre-flight inspections to not only ensure that fasteners are present as many do/have been trained to do; but also ensure they are installed properly; which is something I wasn't trained to look for on this aircraft type (there is a very specific way the fasteners need to be locked as I now know). Maintenance personnel should always check and double check that the cowling has been properly secured following any maintenance action that involves opening the cowling.




Synopsis: Piper PA31 pilot noticed in cruise that one of the engine cowls was not fully attached and elected to return to the departure airport. It was reported that the cowling had not been properly locked following maintenance activity.