elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a Ground School lesson with my student in preparation for their Private Pilot Practical exam; we went over the certificates and documents required in the Practical Test Standards for the exam. While covering the subject I realized that the Robinson R22HP [helicopter] I had been using had certain maintenance concerns that made me question the airworthiness of the helicopter. After further research I came to the conclusion that the helicopter was not airworthy for discrepancies concerning the documentation and maintenance required. I had flown the helicopter on several occasions prior and sent solo students flying in a possible unairworthy condition that was not known by me until this time. I have not flown the helicopter since the discovery of the discrepancies and have brought the issues to the attention of the Owner and Operator of the helicopter. I will not fly the aircraft until the helicopter is returned to an airworthy condition. The reason that I hadn't realized this sooner is the Robinson R22 HP model has a Service Bulletin (S/B) regarding oil changes that differ it from the Robinson R22 Beta II that I normally use.

Callback: Reporter stated the Robinson R22-HP is an early model R22 that came with a four cylinder opposed Lycoming engine with only oil screen; not an oil filter. The Service Bulletin (S/B) for that Lycoming engine on the R22-HP model required an oil change every 25-hours unless an oil filter kit had been installed. The R22 Beta-2 helicopter with the Textron Lycoming engine could go 50-hours because that engine has an oil filter.Reporter stated he found the S/B oil change requirement in the maintenance section of their Pilot Operating Handbook (POH) during review of the certificates and documents. He then brought the information to their Chief Pilot and Maintenance Director who were quite surprised. Maintenance immediately installed an oil filter kit to bring the operating hours and maintenance requirements in line with the S/B.



Synopsis: During a Ground School lesson involving certificates and documents; a Flight Instructor realizes a Robinson R22-HP helicopter he had been using for student training and solo flights may not have been airworthy. An Oil Change Service Bulletin (S/B) for the R22-HP differed from the R22-Beta-2 he had previously used.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: GEG.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GEG
ATC / advisory: Tower GEG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On HILIE 2 arrival; cleared direct to SIGYO intersection on the ILS 21 and descend to 6500 ft. Had briefed visual approach Runway 21; backed up with ILS. Terrain awareness had been briefed. Approaching 6500 ft; ridge line and airport was in sight. Shortly thereafter; radar altimeter came alive. At approximately 1900 ft AGL; a momentary 'terrain; terrain' warning was received. Immediately initiated escape maneuver. After a few seconds; the warning ceased and RA indicated above 2500 ft. Climbed approximately 300 ft before discontinuing the maneuver. Terrain and airport were in sight at all times. Balance of approach and landing were uneventful.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain waring while on a visual approach to GEG Runway 21. Terrain awareness had been briefed.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Yesterday morning while on Aircraft X as the 'B' FA; while doing my safety and security checks for originating Flight ABCD from ZZZ-ZZZ1; while the aft aircraft entry door on aircraft left (Captain side) is closed; I was unable to fully open the compartment door to get an accurate visual check of my emergency equipment. This was my first time experiencing this issue while working in the B position on a 700.  I had to pull out my phone and turn the camera upside down to check the gauge on the fire extinguisher.Again because of slide pack and door handle blocking the door to the emergency equipment; it was not easy for me to check the gauge on the POBs either.  The door had to be forced open and closed to gain access to the equipment. This issue will also make it impossible for me to have access to retrieve these items in the event of an imminent emergency. The Captain was notified; maintenance was called out; they stated that there was nothing that they could do to fix it and that it was an engineering issue.




Synopsis: B737-700 Flight Attendant reported they were unable to fully open the compartment door to check emergency equipment due to the slide pack and door handle blocking the door; which could limit access to the equipment if needed. Reporter added that Maintenance stated it was an engineering issue.
Date: 201206
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cowling
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I flew this aircraft at night. I do not believe the OAT exceeded 86 degrees. To memory; I have only flown this aircraft at night which leads me to believe I did not violate the temperature exceedence for flying with snow baffles. I brought up the issue with base supervisors and was told they kept the snow baffles on to prevent bird strike or other FOD into the compressor.




Synopsis: A B206 helicopter may have flown with the snow baffles installed during early summer months causing a temperature exceedence.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload
Anomaly: Other fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying a three day trip with a layover. It ended with a red eye leg home. I was only able to sleep 1 hour or so the afternoon before the red eye flight. I was able to operate the flight to my domicile safely. I am on reserve and noticed upon checking my schedule I was placed with a minimum domicile rest and back on reserve that evening. I tried to rest as much as possible that day but had difficulty. I tossed and turned most of the afternoon and probably slept a total of 1 to 1.5 hours. I felt increasingly worse and exhausted. [Shortly after my reserve began]; Scheduling called me to notify me that I was being assigned an international 4 day trip with a 3 hour show time that night for a 10 hour flight that night. I told Scheduling that I was unable to do the trip because of my horrible state of fatigue I was in. They immediately put me on fatigue for the night and back on reserve early the next morning.




Synopsis: A First Officer returned home from a three day trip and the following day was assigned an all night four day international trip but called in fatigued and was removed from the schedule.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft was level at FL350. It was my leg and the autopilot was engaged. I had noticed a couple hundred pound split in the feeder tanks but did not see it as a concern. I then saw the Number 2 transfer light illuminate. I brought the illumination to the attention of [the] Captain. He asked me to run the checklist for transfer light illumination. All steps were completed. A few minutes later the Number 1 transfer light illuminated followed by a further drop in the feeder tank level on the number one side. I once again ran the transfer light illumination procedure; completing all steps. This did not correct the problem. It was at this time that [the] Captain took control of the aircraft [and] advised ATC of the malfunction. I took pilot monitoring duties and began preparing for landing.A procedure needs to be in place on how to deal with a dual transfer light failure.




Synopsis: Falcon 20 First Officer reported encountering a dual fuel transfer light issue in flight that he stated was not well covered in the manual.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Cycle Machine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On Aircraft X ZZZ1 - ZZZ during final descent I noticed an oily/burning fumes that was present in the entire AFT of the aircraft but intense towards the middle AFT of the aircraft and was coming from the air vents. We communicated with each other as a crew and confirmed that all inflight [Cabin Attendants] (F1;F2;F3;F4) detected the fumes. The intensity was a Level 2: Moderate. During this phase my symptoms were the following: burning eyes; nose and throat. Flight deck was notified. After deplaning the fumes and my symptoms dissipated. Maintenance came on board and decided we would continue our next flight with same aircraft. On Aircraft X ZZZ to ZZZ1 during boarding when engines were turned on I immediately detected the oily burning fumes that were now at a Level 3: Strong since customers began to complain as well. The location started initially in the AFT of the aircraft but during deplaning was detectable throughout entire aircraft. The source was the same which was the air vents. The phase was during boarding on the ground. Flight deck was notified and they determined we had to deplane all customers. Myself and F4 were experiencing more severe symptoms. I experienced symptoms of burning eyes; nose and throat once again. I also began to feel tightness in my chest; difficulty breathing; thickness in the air; slight disoriented; and minor speech problems. Due to my symptoms I felt as though I was unable to perform my inflight duties safely. [Medical staff] was contacted when off the aircraft. Myself and the F4 were sent to the hospital.




Synopsis: A320 Flight Attendant crew reported a fume event during boarding resulting in flight delay/cancellation.
Date: 201206
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flight Crew Harness
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During my preflight check I found that I was unable to adjust one of my shoulder harnesses at my jump seat at 1 left; inboard to accommodate my stature due to a jam. Possibly a smaller flight attendant may have been able to wiggle his/her way into the shoulder harness and be safely strapped in; however; for someone of my size--6 FT; 190 LBS-- it was not possible. I continued with my other pre-flight checks and duties planning to return to deal with the issue of the stuck shoulder harness however before I knew it passengers began to board and I began my boarding responsibilities. Just before the door was closed I then had to deal with a last minute group and almost 20 bags to check. By this time I had totally forgotten about the shoulder harness issue until I needed to sit down for takeoff. I would not have been able to completely strap in as is policy so I utilized the workable jump seat harness at 1 left outboard. The flight was a short one hour and as soon as I could I jumped right into the service followed by assisting in the main cabin.During the quick fight I again failed to remember to work on the problem seat harness until final descent and landing. Once on the ground and passenger deplaning was almost complete I attempted to get the shoulder harness unstuck but just then all the cleaners started swarming onto the plane and I just left. I then explained the jump seat issue with a local domicile representative who then verified my concerns. In closing; if I were to have sat in jump seat 1 left inboard I would have to be writing this same report explaining why I didn't strap into my jump seat safely.




Synopsis: A large Flight Attendant discovered his assigned jump seat harness was jammed and unusable for someone of his stature. When other duties prevented him from attempting to fix the jam he was compelled to sit in another seat contrary to SOP. He ultimately left the aircraft with the seat belt still jammed after completion of his flights.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PNE.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NYC
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post-Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On Date; XB:30am I was scheduled to depart PNE airport and fly to the special flight rules area over Hudson river for the tour of Manhattan; fly through it once and then return back to PNE airport. I was the PIC (Pilot in Command). Before departing I called 1-800-WxBrief at XA:42am to get the latest information about weather in-flight and possible TFRs. The briefer responded with the weather (all VMC) and informed me about TFR over Manhattan and Hudson river that does NOT apply to me. TFR was only concerning usage of drones due to [event] and only restricted usage of drones in that area; did not apply to aircraft.Having received that information; I departed PNE per plan and flew through the Hudson River SFRA as planned on 1100 ft. altitude and provided calls as instructed by the training on SFRA. I noticed that one airplane made a 180 turn before that TFR and did not fly into the area through Hudson river. I flew through that area having been informed that there is no active TFR for manned aircraft.I'm reporting this event because I want to make sure that I have not accidentally flown through the aircraft TFR that was active not only for drones; but was active for aircraft as well at the time. ForeFlight did not show anything except UAS restriction; neither did the briefer told me about any restrictions. That airplane making a 180 turn and avoiding the area made me think that there might have been another active TFR that briefer or ForeFlight did not inform me of.As a recommendation; may I suggest that FAA publishes TFRs with a bit more clear language of who they apply and do not apply to: e.g.; stating clearly 'Following TFR applies only to UAS' or 'TFR applies to all manned and unmanned aircraft'.




Synopsis: Pilot of a small aircraft reported flying through a TFR after being advised by a weather briefer and electronic flight app that the TFR applied only to UAS and not to fixed wing aircraft. The pilot stated the NOTAM verbiage wasn't clear and may have led to the airspace incursion.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CRG.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation I (C500)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CRG
ATC / advisory: Tower CRG
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When approximately 15 miles southwest of CRG; myself and the first officer determined that it was unlikely we would be able to visually identify CRG due to a low cloud layer that began approximately 10 miles from CRG. At this time we were told to expect the visual approach to runway 5 at CRG. We requested an RNAV approach to runway 14 and were informed that runway 14/32 was NOTAMed closed. Approach control further informed us that a helicopter had visually identified the airport a few miles ahead of our present location. We continued to the airport and were able to spot the airport through a hole in the clouds. We informed approach control and were cleared to conduct a visual approach to runway 5. During the approach we were high and fast and utilized the speed brakes to slow the aircraft and assist in the descent. The aircraft was properly configured and stable approach criteria met prior to reaching 500 feet AGL. An uneventful landing and taxi to the FBO was conducted.During the taxi to the FBO; I questioned the CRG ground controller about when the runway had been closed. He informed me the runway had been closed within the previous half hour and the NOTAM was likely not posted until after we had departed. He stated that the lights for runway 14/32 were being worked on and that caused the runway closure.At CRG runway 14/32 is the only runway with instrument approaches. My recommendation would have been to wait until conditions improved so that visual approaches could be more easily conducted to runway 5/23. If this solution is not possible; then better prior planning and NOTAM dissemination would be nice. We were a Medevac flight with a surgical team and human organ on the aircraft. An unplanned diversion would not have been the worst thing in the world but could have significantly impacted the surgical team and the subsequent transplant procedure.




Synopsis: CE500 Captain reported arriving at CRG to find the only instrument runway NOTAMed closed. Fortunately; a visual approach was possible and accomplished. The NOTAM for runway light repairs had been issued after the flight had departed for CRG.