elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After shut down and opening the main cabin door; the Flight Attendant on the flight came up saying that a passenger had told her that she needed to use the bathroom. The passenger then went into the galley; shut the galley curtain; and proceeded to use the bathroom into a coffee cup. While trying to figure out exactly what was happening and trying to figure out coordination with Ops; the passengers deplaned. Not being able to detain [the] passenger [since] the passenger left. I called Hazmat to have them dispose of the waste and scrub the galley. I also coordinated with Ops to get everything replaced in the galley. We were ground delayed 15 min in ZZZ waiting for a wheels up. I turned off the fasten belt sign and told everyone feel free to use the bathroom while on the ground. The flight was approximately 45 min with mod turbulence; so there wasn't a chance to get the fasten belt sign off. I feel like there were ample opportunities to use the bathroom before we got off the ground.




Synopsis: Embraer Jet Captain reported Hazmat cleaning crew required to dispose and scrub galley of human waste.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending on the arrival; we received an ice indication. So; we elected to turn the APU and anti-ice on. On switching the bleeds; I; as the FO (First Officer); noticed a faint smell that I could not identify from the packs. But shortly after; the odor cleared and I could not smell it again and believed it to be just the packs switching to the APU. Later on; around 8;000; the Flight Attendant notified us that there was a fuel smell in the very back of the cabin and it was persisting. The Captain communicated the issue and we both concluded that there was no smell in the cockpit. We continued the approach and not even a thousand feet or so later; I had a feeling in my stomach that [that] was not normal. I immediately notified the Captain and we decided to put our oxygen masks on and requested priority handling.We continued the approach and I landed the aircraft at ZZZ. On exiting the runway at the hold pad of XX; we ran the QRH and decided [that] we needed to evacuate the aircraft. After running the evacuation checklist; the Captain notified all [of] the contacts and everyone was bused in. The plane was [then] towed to the gate. The fire crew notified us of no detection on the equipment but they noticed a petroleum smell in the back of the cabin.The Flight Attendant notified us of the smell that she and [the] passengers noticed; as well as the crew in the cockpit noticing something on APU start up and my stomach getting upset on approach. [The cause was a] smell of fuel or some other unknown thing in the cabin. Dawned and 100 percent on the oxygen masks for me and the Captain; notifying ATC and landing the plane in ZZZ. [Suggest] a further inspection of the packs or the plane for issues.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported a fumes event during arrival noticed by passengers; Flight Attendant; and flight crew.
Date: 201501
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Our] company is outsourcing ground operations and handling at certain stations. [Our departure airport] must be one of those stations. Today I noticed that [passenger agents] and ramp personnel were part of a company called [XYZ]. They did not know any of our procedures. [The passenger agent] closed the door 18 minutes before the departure time without checking with us. We were still getting fuel and he did not collect the aircraft safety check form left in the cockpit for me to sign. I called them back and had them open the cabin door. He admitted that he never worked a mainline flight and did not [know] the procedures. Then I noticed the push crew was signaling me to release the brakes and pushback with hand signals. There was nobody on the headset. I called ops and asked them about that. Ops person said that they left the headset at another gate and they'd like to do hand signals. I told him that they need to coordinate that with me beforehand and I said that they need to get their headset because of safety reasons and their obvious lack of knowledge of our SOPs. Finally they retrieved the headset but the person on the headset did not know any of our pushback SOPs. He would not reply or communicate with me during the pushback. It was very obvious that this crew did not receive any training about our procedures and was thrown out there to learn and operate on the fly. This type of operation is very dangerous. It seems like [our] company is expanding this type of outsourcing to many other stations. I'm very concerned about the lack of training. We need to stop this before they hurt someone or damage an aircraft.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain reported serial breaches of company SOP by recently contracted ground personnel. He fears his airline is expanding the use of safety task related contracted personnel around without providing effective training in the carrier's carefully developed SOPs.
Date: 201305
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We received the final weights via the ACARS printer. The trim was set as called for and verified. As a cross check; I entered the MAC on the Takeoff page in the FMC and it's trim setting was very close to the final weight message. During the takeoff roll; with V speeds properly set; I attempted to lift the nose off the runway at the rotate command; but it was very hard to do so. I had to pull very hard and had to add nose up trim. The nose finally came up. During manual flight I noticed the aircraft difficult to level off and after adding trim inputs; it was if I was over trimming. It seemed out of balance.

Callback: The reporter advised that he believed the issue to be flawed load planning data and not a mechanical problem with the elevator/stab trim systems.  He based that belief on the normal operation and response of the system after the initial surprisingly excessive forces on takeoff were resolved.  He did not make an AML write up of the event; electing to write a company safety report instead.



Synopsis: A B757 Captain reported unusually high stick forces required at rotation due; he believes; from faulty weight and balance calculations by load planners.
Date: 201310
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: SF 340A
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing runways 15/25R; departing runways 15/25L; steady stream of heavy arrivals to 15 from the southwest blocking normal route to a frequently used departure gate. Visual approach from the south southeast to 25R; SF34 departed 25L; turned to heading 190 to maintain 4;000 followed by a B732 same runway; heading; altitude and departure gate. Turned the SF34 southeast at 4;000 with the intention of turning the B732 heading 180 and climb above; then both go out the gate climbing to FL200. Frequency congestion a factor; issued the SF34 FL200 with conflicting DH8A descending through 4;900 FT; about 10 miles away. I thought the SF34 read back the climb; but did not. The DH8A pilot called the traffic in sight prior to separation being lost and instructed to maintain visual separation. He bailed me out. I should have canceled the visual approach clearance and instructed the DH8A to maintain 5;000; positive control; ensuring separation to protect from frequency congestion and a better habit anyway. Listen better to what is actually being transmitted; the trainee on handoff; the OJTI and the FLM conducting a skill check all realized that the pilot did not read back the altitude assignment; this is not an assignment of responsibility to them; and this was my fault alone. The handoff trainee indicated a problem as the traffic was converging. Launching a B732 right behind a SF34 same heading; altitude and gate is bad news; I can't leave both at 4;000 FT because the B732 will overtake the SF34 even with a speed restriction; it won't work. Change the departure sequence and explain to the SF34 why; if necessary; and launch the B732 first. Ensure separation at all times!




Synopsis: TRACON described a developing conflict; the reporter providing a detailed self analysis of 'what actions should have been accomplished'.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EUG.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E EUG
ATC / advisory: TRACON EUG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Trainee; Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was training a developmental who is lower in training hours but generally doing well. Traffic this session had been busier than usual. I was working on following his scan and keeping up with his actions along with all the pilot requests. Aircraft X had departed and been given our standard missed approach climb-out instructions to fly a heading and maintain 4000 feet. Due to other traffic to the west the trainee turned Aircraft X to the east; heading 070; where his path would approach a 4400 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) in about 10 miles. We got caught up in working other aircraft before turning Aircraft X south to avoid the 4400 foot MVA. The trainee issued a climb to 5000 feet as Aircraft X was about 2 miles from the 4400 foot boundary at 4000 feet. I instructed the trainee to tell Aircraft X to expedite the climb. I believe Aircraft X reached 044 in that MVA approximately 2 miles northwest of the depicted obstacle.Perhaps change our local Standard Operating Procedure to change our standard climb-out to maintain 5000 feet; as this would ensure safety whether we turn aircraft to the east or west. Ask for a hand off assist or other eyes to help maintain a bigger scan. Work myself to not get caught simply following the trainee's scan along with his instructions.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: EUG TRACON Trainee Controller left an aircraft on a vector too long and it flew into airspace below the MVA.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BHM.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BHM
ATC / advisory: Tower BHM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting initial operating experience on new First Officer; we had briefed the visual approach to Runway 6 into BHM paying special attention to the antennas and where a safe turn could be made for the right base leg. We also discussed safe altitudes and when to start down from 3;000 FT to 2;500 FT. We had made the right base turn and I had selected the altitude selector down to 2;500 FT and was cleaning up the approach [checklist] when I looked up [and noted] we had turned further East than I had anticipated and the First Officer had started a descent. While getting myself oriented with the runway I clicked the autopilot off and started a left turn back to more of a base leg while adding power and starting a climb when Tower advised he had received a low altitude alert and; at the same time; the GPWS issued a warning. The warning only lasted a few seconds since we were correcting the error. After I got the aircraft back on profile and verified the First Officer was back in the game and looking at the runway I transferred the controls back to the First Officer and he continued the visual approach on profile to a decent landing. The threat was me being heads down and doing a poor job of monitoring; this allowed us to enter into an undesired state (low altitude alert and GPWS warning).




Synopsis: A Check Airman conducting initial operating experience with a new First Officer on a CRJ-700 was distracted by other duties as the First Officer; who was flying a visual approach to BHM; got distracted; overturned to final and triggered a low altitude alert from the Tower and a momentary EGPWS warning. An appropriate profile to an uneventful landing was quickly re-established and no go around resulted.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon landing in ZZZ that morning we got an ENG 2 REV FAIL message on the EICAS. As soon as I parked the aircraft at the gate; I wrote up the aircraft and then called Maintenance (MX). The contract MX worker showed up some time later and wrote up the reverser as being deferred. We then amended the release; boarded up and headed to ZZZ1. Upon landing in ZZZ1; the same EICAS message appeared again after we noticed #2 reverser was not gated and the thrust lever did go into reverse. ENG 2 REV FAIL appeared again on the EICAS and when we arrived at the gate; I wrote up the reverser as not being properly deferred by the contract MX in ZZZ. Two mechanics then showed up in ZZZ1; they went through the roughly 15 step process to defer the #2 reverser. The contract MX in ZZZ did not go through the process whatsoever to properly secure the reverser and as a result; another delay was taken by us to get the situation resolved. WE NEED to have reliable MX in place at ZZZ. Since I no longer can trust the MX [in ZZZ]; there will be a serious hesitation in knowing that the proper steps are taken when something breaks in the future.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported a failed thrust reverser was not properly deferred at a contract maintenance station.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After taxiing in my personal aircraft a Dakota; from the FBO to Runway XX at Charlie intersection; I was given a hold short instruction which I complied with. A private jet ahead was given a 'Line up and Wait' instruction and did. Tower then directed the jet to taxi to Charlie 1 intersection and exit the runway because 'you are going to eat up the aircraft that just departed.' I then heard a radio transmission from a commercial aircraft reporting a 5 mile final; and Tower cleared the carrier to land. Tower then instructed a Cessna on the other side of the runway to 'Line up and Wait' which the pilot complied with; and was then cleared for take off which the pilot did. I was watching the carrier approaching now probably three miles out and thought that was risky clearing the Cessna to depart. Tower then instructed me; 'Dakota XXX Line up and wait.' I read back the instruction and began taxiing; adding' That carrier looks very close.' Tower replied;' Who's the controller here; you or me?' I replied you are; and I am following your instructions but concerned about my safety. Tower then cleared me to take off and I did without incident. Later; I realized this was a potentially unsafe event with the carrier now less than two miles and one minute from landing and what if I had experienced a delay from a multitude of possibilities; mag or tire failure; etc. And what if I had departed and the carrier had to conduct a missed approach at 150 knots with my plane climbing out at 80 knots right in front. I did not appreciate the Tower Controller's rude and abrasive comments and question the safety of the instructions.




Synopsis: Pilot cleared for take-off questioned the Tower Controller about traffic on short final cleared to land.