elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were being vectored to a visual approach to 22L at EWR. We were just north of the SWEET intersection headed NE. ATC advised us of VFR traffic 500 above us headed SE. We had additional traffic 1000 below about 1 mile off our right side just ahead going NE also. We spotted the traffic and the TCAS showed them only 300 above us. We were given a frequency change. Before checking in with the new controller the TCAS issued an RA with a 'monitor vertical speed' command. The VSI directive was to maintain our VS or descend. The captain held level and we continued to monitor the traffic. I advised the new controller with the check in. The RA cleared and the captain reconnected the autopilot. The minimum distance between us and the traffic was 300 feet. We continued to a visual approach with no further issues.




Synopsis: CRJ900 First Officer reported a TCAS event during vectors to EWR with VFR traffic 500 feet above. TCAS showed the altitude difference to be 300 feet and commanded; 'Monitor Vertical Speed' possibly due to IFR traffic 1000 feet below.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Maintenance deferred the IDG [Integrated Drive Generator] on the aircraft. There was a previous MEL that stated operations could not be dependant on the APU. Looking over the MEL's at the time of deferral I discussed it with the PIC and we did not realize both MEL's would render the plane unairworthy. We amended the release with the IDG deferral and the flight departed. Maintenance did not call to advise us of the deferral of the IDG or discuss the issues having both MEL's on the aircraft at the same time. Looking over the previous MEL it was not clear to me that the APU could not be depended on for operations. The Captain also did not realize that plane should not depart with the deferrals.We need better communication between Maintenance and Dispatch regarding airworthiness. I need to understand clearly what the MEL's are indicating and the performance issues that will arise when more than one deferral is on the aircraft. The MEL should be clearer with possible notes indicating that the IDG's must be operative.




Synopsis: When neither the Dispatcher nor the Captain noted the MELed IDG; combined with a previously noted APU MEL declaring it unable to provide electrical system redundancy; the flight was released with only a single source of electrical AC power.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Tower, OR
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the RWY 10L ILS at 013 [heading]; and Aircraft Y was indicating 010 [heading] in the left downwind for RWY 08 at VUO which is underneath about a 3 mile final for RWY 10L. I called traffic to both pilots; but Aircraft X got a TCAS RA and started to climb. The pilot of Aircraft X advised that he was going around because he got an RA and was too close to Aircraft Y. On Aircraft X's 2nd approach to the airport; Aircraft Y was in a similar location as Aircraft X approached VUO airport; but was able to land. This all happened because of the close proximity of VUO airport to the final for RWY 10L at PDX. Our arrivals and traffic at VUO are at very similar altitudes in the vicinity of UAO.Three things I would recommend are to:A. Put a control tower at VUO airport.B. Restrict pattern work at VUO airport.C. Close VUO airport.




Synopsis: Portland Tower Controller reported an unsafe situation related to an aircraft inbound to Portland and one inbound to Pearson Field that resulted in an RA and a go around.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Post flight unload
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were aircraft on ground in ZZZ for a slide. [Tracking system] spreadsheet this unit was not Hazmat. When told unit had Hazmat stickers on it. When off other units that was have waivers to be able ship. All the information I had to go off stated the unit was not Hazmat. Even the documentation for the unit didn't state it was Hazmat. Asked planning about their list of slides deemed non-Hazmat and they were unable to find. We do have several parts were the interchangeable part is not Hazmat. As the system told me that the slide was not Hazmat it was faster to send our unit then to get a unit from ZZZ1 by several hours.  Cause: Due to incorrect info in system items was shipped on [passenger] flight when it should not have been.Suggestions: Always have copy of pick list from [software] with no Hazmat statement.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported Hazmat aircraft part was incorrectly shipped as Non-Hazmat.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was southbound from CYLW to MMPR. The aircraft was level at FL370. As per the procedure entering Mazatlan (MMZT) Center; the flight plan was verified; radar services were terminated; and the aircraft was shipped to MMZT Center approximately 15 miles north of Mexican airspace. A couple minutes later I noticed the aircraft still in my airspace climbing without prior coordination. There were no other aircraft in the vicinity so separation was never lost. There has been an increasing problem of MMZT Center climbing or descending aircraft without coordination prior to entering their airspace.A better understanding of procedures and rules between the two nation's air traffic systems would be helpful. There is no way to prevent deviations with MMZT Center. We have tried supervisor to supervisor conversations and the occurrences keep happening more frequently. A formal way to discuss issues and consequences needs to be set up.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller describes transferring communications of one aircraft to Mazatlan Center; and then sees the aircraft climb without coordination from MMZT ARTCC. No separation problems were noted. Controller states there is an increase of these problems with MMZT ARTCC.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 100
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My captain and I were enroute on our IFR flight plan when we experienced a total hydraulic failure. It started when we began to lose pressure in the hydraulic system; and then ran the required QRH procedure. This fixed the problem for only a few moments before a 0 psi indication was observed. Our landing gear deployed because the hydraulic pressure could not keep it up in the gear wells. It was after this that we could not maintain our cruise speed; and our fuel required us to divert as well [as] look for the longest runway possible to stop the aircraft because of severely limited braking. Our expectation was to have only 6 brake applications from the emergency brake accumulator per the manufacturer and our training. We told Center that we needed to divert for both braking and fuel reasons; and they asked if we [would need assistance] because we might be shutting down the runway due to limited braking and might need to be towed off. We then [requested priority handling] and diverted to ZZZ and landed. Upon landing; we cleared the runway under our own power and the brakes had some pressure left. We stopped on the taxiway and were inspected and chocked by ZZZ operations.After no damage was observed to the aircraft and all individuals were deemed safe and not in need of medical attention; we were able to taxi under our own power. We then talked to our company operations and grounded the aircraft for maintenance. My captain and I debriefed the situation.Always be learning and applying the SOP's; and take your time. My Captain and I did all those things and conferred with one another on the best course of action; and determined because of limited fuel and range (even though we took off with well over the legal minimum); as a result of the gear deploying; we made the best and the SAFEST decision possible in the moment; and had the best outcome. Safety is ALWAYS the only priority.A good pilot is always learning!




Synopsis: EMB-500 First Officer reported a total hydraulic failure.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Inbound aircraft to make up our flight had a companion dog that vomited and defecated multiple times. Stench quickly traveled throughout aircraft. Dog defecated in jetway as it was deplaning. Cleaners attempted to disinfect and cleanup the problem. When my crew boarded the aircraft; the fumes from the cleaning fluid were very intense. Flight Attendant thought she was getting a headache from the odors. My evaluation of the situation was that the fumes were way too strong to allow passenger operations. The cleaners had used a cleaning product called 'Aero Clean X-200.' The label on the bottle says in part; 'Vapors may cause central nervous system depression; headache; and dizziness...' I had to refuse the airplane for passenger operations. While all along the company kept lying to me saying there were no other aircraft available in a maintenance base and major hub; at night with multiple overnight airplanes. When I refused the airplane; amazingly there was another airplane available. Unnecessary 2 hour delay.




Synopsis: A Companion Dog on an A320 became ill and loose boweled; requiring a potentially toxic cleaning agent to clean up. The crew refused aircraft for flight because of fumes.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: KOA.Airport, HI
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: KOA Tower called me for a release on a B737. I issued a departure clearance of 'Depart heading 350 until joining V11; released your discretion Air Carrier...'.  The Air Carrier aircraft was inbound on the ILS17 Approach. The KOA Tower Controller then questioned this clearance by asking if I really wanted to send the departing aircraft at the inbound aircraft. I replied that 'released your discretion' meant that they needed to provide visual separation or the pilots had to provide visual separation between the aircraft or else don't release the departure until the arriving aircraft has landed. The heading of 350 insured IFR separation would be provided after the use of visual separation to protect for the missed approach. The LOA with KOA allows KOA Tower to provide visual separation between referenced aircraft; in this case the B737 and the other Air Carrier. When the B737 checked in on my frequency the aircraft was about six miles south of the airport out of 3;500 FT. When I asked the pilot why he was so far south he replied that the Tower had issued him Runway (17) heading and then; just before being switched; was issued a heading of 350 leaving 3;000 FT to join V11. By this time the aircraft was already past the point where it could join the airway and had now become a factor with another aircraft inbound to KOA from the northwest as well as was crossing over the missed approach fix for the ILS 17 Approach. KOA Tower must be staffed with competent controllers. I would recommend that the FAA take over the Tower and make the airspace surrounding the Tower Class Charlie airspace. This airport handles way too many air carriers and passengers; as well as a mix of military and general aviation aircraft; to remain a Contract VFR Tower




Synopsis: HCF Controller expressed concern regarding the competance of the 'Contract ATC Controllers' at KOA Tower; citing a recent example of a clearance issued that was not understood.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 33
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Other ATP
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In descent while returning to land at ZZZ from west of the airport and north of the Denver Class B airspace; I received a TCAS warning very close to our aircraft. I made a rapid and aggressive descending turn away from the threat aircraft in the direction of the Class B airspace (the only way that I could turn). We were near; but below the ceiling of the Class B segment and did not enter it. We never did see the other aircraft. The remainder of approach and landing were normal.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported taking evasive action in response to a TCAS warning near DEN Class B airspace.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying with my student in [a] BE-76 for a check ride review flight. We were doing the usual flight training in [the] training area at 6000 feet; and after all maneuvers we started to do single engine operations - Single engine failure in air and restart. But after the single engine failure; when we tried to restart the left engine we were unable to restart the left engine using the appropriate methods - using [both with] accumulator and without accumulator methods as per checklist. So we landed [at a nearby airport]. When we were [on the] ground after [the] safe landing we tried to start the left engine and it started after couple of tries.




Synopsis: BE76 Instructor Pilot reported diverting to an alternate airport after the left engine failed to restart following an inflight shut down for training.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff on Runway XXR in ZZZ we (CA/FO/JS) smelled a strong odor; presumably an electrical odor. The FA called the flight deck and told the CA that the smell was in the cabin as well. The CA immediately [contacted ATC] and we were given immediate vectors to return to Runway XYR in ZZZ. As the pilot flying; I was vectored to a right downwind for Runway XYR and we leveled off at 3000 FT. FA's were briefed; a PA was made to the passengers and ATC was notified. The QRH was referenced and were back on the ground within 10 minutes. After landing we taxied off of Runway XYR and came to a stop so fire rescue could examine the aircraft. No discrepancies were noticed by ARF and we proceeded to the gate without further incident.


Second narrative: In the high speed portion of the takeoff roll I began to notice a distinct odor unlike any of the typical odors normally encountered. At 500 FT the FO and JS rider also mentioned a strong odor. At about 1000 FT; the FA called the cockpit and informed me that they had a very strong 'electrical' odor throughout the cabin. At that point I [contacted] tower and we received vectors back to ZZZ for a visual approach and landing on Runway XYR. The FO continued to fly the A/C and also handled ATC communications. I communicated with the FA's and made a PA announcement to the passengers informing them of our situation. We conducted the QRH procedure for SMOKE; FIRE; OR FUMES. (We elected to not don the O2 masks but to take them out of the box as the fumes seemed to be manageable in the cockpit and visibility was not impaired.) After landing the CFR conducted a visual inspection of the aircraft; no issues were noted so we taxied to E3. Maintenance requested that we deplane the aircraft so that they could troubleshoot the problem.


Synopsis: B737 crew noticed an electrical burning smell immediately after takeoff. Cabin crew also detected the fumes. Crew returned to departure airport.