elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A321
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am concerned about the turn our Training Department has taken. I recently completed Airbus Transition; throughout the program I continuously informed the Ground School Instructors; Sim Pilots as well as Check Airmen that I felt inadequately trained. The end result was failing the Line Orientation Experience (LOE) portion of the syllabus. Following a few addition Sim's I did pass the Checkride however I spoke with the Head of Training and indicated that I was deeply troubled by the adequacy of training being conducted. Essentially every pilot I met while going through; regardless of the fleet; expressed similar sentiments. I am continually self teaching myself aircraft systems as there was in essence NO Systems Course; instructors were new and demonstrated very little knowledge; referring to the iPad for answers to my questions. I have heard that [company] is accepting a 25% failure rate as that it is a more economical way to run a program; verses a traditional; curriculum.   Yesterday on arrival at DFW we had a passenger requiring medical assistance during deplaning. To a person NONE of the Flight Attendants knew where the Medical Kits were; I immediately notified Ramp of the requirement to summon medical personnel; made a PA for any medical professionals on board and requested all passengers to take the nearest available seat so that EMT's and crew members could gain access to the ill passenger. I then began to check my QRH for the location of the Medical Kit; at that time paramedics arrived. My conclusion is that not only are the pilots receiving inadequate training; but training issues are endemic throughout ALL Levels and Departments; Flight as well as Flight Service.




Synopsis: A321 pilot reported he felt he received inadequate training for his new assignment; and stated he has noticed training deficiencies in other job categories as well.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying flight ZZZ to ZZZ1. Departed gate and taxied halfway to runway and received a call from ZZZ Ground Control Stating '[Aircraft X; immediately contact your company'. The First Officer contacted Company and he was told 'You have lithium ion batteries in the cargo compartment and they have to be surrounded by 15 bags; the batteries were only surrounded by 14 bags you have to return to the gate and have the lithium ion batteries removed from the cargo compartment.  We return to the gate; shut down engines; and ground personnel removed a box which appeared to be light weight based on the ground personnel's effort to lift it. We then departed for ZZZ1 without said cargo on board. I have several questions reference this incident. The first; was it legal or proper for the cargo to be carried in the cargo compartment to begin with? I was under the understanding that lithium ion batteries are not allowed in the cargo compartment. Second; how were these lithium ion batteries packaged? Third; from my previous experience as a firefighter adding an additional bag surrounding the lithium ion batteries; if they did catch fire; would simply be more fuel for the fire. I am unable to find any information in the FOM relating to carrying lithium ion batteries as cargo.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported notification during taxi to return to gate to correct Dangerous Goods cargo load configuration error.
Date: 202110
Location: DEN.Tower, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The Jeppesen approach plate for Denver RNP to Runway 26 seems to have an inappropriate speed restriction for the initiation of the RF legs from both sides of the airfield. Both speed restrictions require an 'AT 210 knots;' all other RNP approaches similar in design have 'Below 210 knots.' The use of a hard 'AT 210 knots' for our aircraft means you must be in a manual speed control mode which is not desired for the approach being flown. Clean maneuvering speed (212-215 knots) of the aircraft is typically above the speed requiring the use of flaps and a manual speed window be open; which is a non-standard configuration for this type of approach.  Recommend the approach plate be updated to show 'Below 210' knots max speed at the initial fix.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported the Jeppesen approach chart for DEN RNP Runway 26 has an unusual hard speed requirement at the Initial Approach Fix which causes operational issues.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We departed Runway 27 at SAN. Our departure required us to proceed to JETTI Intersection and then continue on the departure. I was the non-flying pilot and noticed we were making a slight right turn taking us off course and I so advised the flying pilot. We then realized our command bars were giving us different indications. At this time the Controller asked what heading we were on. I replied that we were on a 305 heading. She gave us a 275 heading and told us to go direct PGY VOR. By this time we had already transferred the autopilot back to the left side and determined the right side was giving us erroneous information. We had been cleared to FL410 but upon reaching FL270 we let the new Controller know we were having issues with one of our navigation systems and requested FL290 until we determined we were legal to enter RVSM airspace. We later notified the Controller we were able to continue our climb. Either that Controller or the next advised us to call TRACON and told us it was for a deviation. The rest of the flight was uneventful and later on into the flight the systems seemed to be working.In the departure phase of this flight; everything was happening very quickly. Trying to determine the faulty side and making the proper adjustment to correct the deviation took some time. As soon as we noticed the erroneous indications of the instruments; we should have asked for a heading and then worked on finding a solution to our situation.


Second narrative: I began following the bars and glanced at the MFD to verify the turn. I noticed that the aircraft was deviating off the depicted track. I also noticed that wind vector indicated a 35 KT right quartering headwind. This led me to believe that the command bars were correcting for the wind. I now believe that it was an erroneous reading.


Synopsis: When the pilot flying's FMS provided erroneous guidance during the BE-400's departure from SAN; the flight crew switched roles and utilized the Captain's side avionics to complete their journey. ATC suggested the possibility of a deviation during their departure but none had been issued at the time of their submission.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This event started at cruise at FL270. Flight attendant called with reports of smoke/fumes in cabin around row 10 and had several passengers say something about it as well. Since we cannot determine what the cause is; we followed QRH and it states land immediately at nearest suitable airport. ZZZ was right in front of us; we [advised ATC] and landed uneventfully. We deplaned the airplane in an orderly normal fashion. Fire department went through the airplane with the infrared heat sensor and couldn't find anything. Local maintenance came out and couldn't really find anything. They signed it off and everyone tried to convince us to load up the passengers and go to ZZZ1. Words used by maintenance...just fly it here and we will ground it when it gets here. The smell of electrical smoke in the airplane when they pulled down the panel was really strong. The whole crew decided we didn't want to subject the passengers to any possible danger so we did not put passengers on the airplane and flew the airplane empty to ZZZ1. On the way we left all the lights off in the cabin and left the cockpit door open so we didn't have to second guess and could immediately take action if need be.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reported that a Flight Attendant advised them of smoke and fumes in the cabin. Unable to determine the source and after accomplishing QRH items; the crew diverted for an uneventful landing. After refusing pressure by Company Maintenance to resume passenger flight to destination; the crew flew to their destination without passengers and with all cabin lights off.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student was practicing crosswind takeoffs and landings. On our third landing my student turned final and made a radio call. The other aircraft made a radio call at the same time and was only partially heard. He stated '23 to the north; [ZZZ].' I immediately got on the radio and said 'can you please repeat that for [ZZZ]?' No response. I asked again '[ZZZ] traffic can you repeat for [ZZZ]?' Still no response. We landed on Runway XX and as my student lowered the nose of our aircraft I saw the other aircraft at the opposite end of the runway taking off. We slowed down and veered to the right side of the runway. The other aircraft took off and immediately veered to his right to avoid flying over us. I tried to hail them afterward with no response.We had made several radio calls stating our intentions to land on Runway XX and had not heard one radio call from the other aircraft. He was clearly not listening to the radio and never responded when I tried to get him to repeat his partially heard transmission.




Synopsis: C152 instructor pilot reported another aircraft was departing opposite direction from the landing runway.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ATL
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon taxiing south out of ramp 3 we were given a clearance from Ground to taxi to 27R via L after and to use LC. I read the instructions back and started to look for the aircraft coming from the right. At this point we were approaching the end of the ramp and taxiway L so I said to the captain to slow down. A few seconds later I changed my instruction to stop and said we have to follow that aircraft. He said no we let him in at LC. I started to hit the brakes so we could talk about it and he said again no; follow at LC. At that point we were already on taxiway Lima and the captain contacted ground to resolve the disagreement. Ground notified us that indeed he did want us to go behind the aircraft now; but since that was not possible we were instructed to hold short of L12 and the aircraft used J then M. After that we complied and were in proper sequence again.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a disagreement with the Captain as to their Ground Control clearance.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BTL.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BTL
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a straight-in approach in VMC to BTL Runway 23R; we spotted a black object that appeared to be a small drone approaching from the West. The drone passed overhead at 50 to 100 ft. above us. This incident was shared with the BTL Tower and they relayed a warning to the other aircraft in the pattern of a drone near the airport. We continued our approach and landed without further incident.

Callback: Reporter had no additional information.



Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported a near miss with a UAS while on approach. The pilot advised ATC about the UAS and landed safely.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While complying with the return to service from short term storage task card; there was a step to install APU battery; main battery; and the fly by wire backup battery. I had installed the main battery and the APU battery and signed off the task card block accidentally overlooking the step to install the fly by wire backup battery. The fly by wire backup battery was not installed.A lack of concentration and ensuring that all of the work performed had been properly performed is what led to the fly by wire backup battery not being installed.More focus and attention to detail when signing off work performed will prevent incidents like this from happening in the future.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported inadvertently not installing a backup battery while complying with a return to service task card.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: Tower HNL
Aircraft component: TCAS Equipment
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying ILS 8L HNL. TCAS RA alarmed at approximately 1;400 feet on approach for target that showed 200 feet below us. We were on glideslope on autopilot. Never saw target; RA was 'Monitor vertical speed.' Quickly changed to 'Clear of conflict.'




Synopsis: B767 Captain experiences a TCAS RA for traffic 200 feet below during ILS approach to HNL. No evasive action is required and the validity of the target is never confirmed.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the BLUZZ arrival OPD (Optimized Profile Descent) into Memphis. The transition was north; which would require Aircraft X to cross the TCP (Transfer of Control Point) between 14;000 and 16;000 feet. Earlier; Aircraft X requested runway 27 and I acknowledged him by saying 'you need to make your request with Memphis Approach'. After that conversation; Aircraft X started descending on the arrival; but at the bottom of the OPD stratums. Right before Aircraft X was over BLUZZ; he started to descend below 14;000 feet. I corrected Aircraft X around 13;600 and told him I needed him to maintain 14;000. I believe there might be two issues in this situation. First; I don't know for sure; but there might be some confusion if Tower is sending out ATIS information on runway 27 and the pilots might be setting up for 27 transition even though I am issuing just north transition. Second; I believe the pilot might have entered the information into the FMS and hitting enter; without getting approval from me. I would suggest a safety briefing sent out to pilots on making sure not to enter this information in the FMS until you have been cleared to fly that transition. I would also suggest looking at the ATIS on how we can avoid confusion for the pilots.




Synopsis: ZME Controller reported a CRJ-900 flight crew was issued an arrival and a transition; but descended below the assigned altitude.  Controller reported their is confusion from the ATIS informing the runway in use and possibly pilots setting up for it instead of just the transition.