elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: It was brought to my attention that the Ground Power cable hoist broke and came crashing to the ground seconds after it was disconnected from the aircraft and was fully retracted. It fell inches away from where the employee that retracted it stood. Only because of the employee's quick reaction this did not result in severe injury or possible a fatality. These ground power cables are already pretty heavy. By compounding the height to which they are usually stored plus the metal bracket to which they are attached to; increases the velocity to which they fall to the ground. Now imagine if this cable had fall directly on that employee's head and the metal bracket would've impaled his skull. Hence the severity of what could've occurred this morning. This was not the first time one of these ground power cable hoist broke and crashed to the ground here in EWR. I'm not sure how often these cables hoist are being inspected or if they are being inspected at all!




Synopsis: A Ramp Agent reported an Ground Power Cable hoist broke and fell next to a ramp employee narrowly missing him.
Date: 201902
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Reno 9 Departure: The initial climb instructions for Runway 16L/16R state: 'Climb on heading 164 and IRNO Localizer south course.' This is not worded properly. It is impossible to fly a heading and a course at the same time. Runways 25 and 34L/R instructions do not have this error.




Synopsis: First officer reported incorrect wording on Jeppsen chart departure.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZWY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZWY
ATC / advisory: Center ZWY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Using JeppFD-Pro flight deck pro I noticed that ATUGI was compulsory reporting point on L454 but I always check the notes as well and the note says 'L454 N-BND AND M201 on request.' I interpreted this to mean that ATUGI was compulsory northbound and M201 on request. This seemed confusing but the FO and I discussed it and agreed that it was not compulsory southbound. Looking at it now the 'and' ties them together as 'on request' not as I read it as separated by the 'and.'To compound the problem the SELCAL chime didn't work when NY SELCALed us so we didn't see the light for a few minutes. (the SELCAL chime had a maint. History and had been op checked ok by maint.) when we saw the light we called NY and then frequency 6586 was weak and unreadable (multiple pilots were having troubles with this freq.) we called on secondary and were able to make the ATUGI report as requested but 10-15 minutes late; I estimate.


Second narrative: While flying Southbound over point ATUGI on Caribbean Track L454; we did not report over ATUGI because Jepp Pro shows the point as a non mandatory reporting point. The aircraft was also dispatched with a questionable HF radio that had been written up and did not function properly; so when ATC tried to contact us just past ATUGI; we did not receive a SELCAL chime from them; although we had a good SELCAL check before heading down track. It was a little farther down track past ATUGI before we noticed the SELCAL light was on and contacted ATC. We continued to troubleshoot the HF radio issues and wrote the airplane up with a MX write up addressing the radio issue.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew misunderstands the note at ATUGI on L454 south bound as not requiring a position report. Their Selcal chime is malfunctioning and the crew does not notice a call from ATC until they are 60 NM south.
Date: 201903
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other tow
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Repairman
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My partner and I changed 2 nose wheel assemblies on Aircraft X. Aircraft X was being towed and the RH nose wheel fell off.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported after changing nose wheel assembly; during tow; RH wheel assembly fell off.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
Aircraft component: Toilet Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Toilet paper roll falling in the aft right toilet on previous flight may have caused back-up of toilet. Toilet paper roll holder is missing. Toilet paper was left on the sink counter for use. Cleaning crew came in hazmat suits for clean-up. Clean-up crew did not remove aft galley carts. Additional overflow continued to seep out from under the carts during taxi and after takeoff. Additional clean-up needed [upon landing]. I will be discarding my shoes worn on the trip. [Recommend that] soaked carpet in rear of aircraft should be replaced. Plane is still operating. Seat Rows 23 thru 25 and Aft Galley saturated with toilet water. Complacency [Issue].

Callback: Reporter stated no further information is known as to whether additional cleaning of the galley and lavatory was accomplished; or whether the carpets had been removed due to the Blue water contaimination. She was not sure if Maintenance checked the Aft cargo pit under the galley floor.



Synopsis: A Cabin Flight Attendant reports that Blue Water fluid from a previous overflow spill in the Aft Lavatory toilet on their B737 aircraft had continued to seep out from under the galley carts; saturating cabin flooring and carpets under the aft three rows of passenger seats.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was the first time I had operated at SLC since ASDE-X installation began to call for transponder use on taxiways. The last time I had taken off from this airport was approximately nine years prior. During pre-flight; I identified the transponder usage specification in the AFD. I noted that I'd need to turn on the transponder after getting taxi clearance from ground. I obtained VFR clearance through the airspace from clearance delivery; taxied from the hangar to the edge of the ramp; and called ground for clearance. However; upon receiving taxi clearance; I forgot to activate the transponder. Ground reminded me ('verify...') to activate my transponder shortly thereafter; and I complied. It appears that habit from previous operations at the airport (I had done my primary and instrument flight training at this airport before taxiway transponder use was effective) won out over my pre-flight review of the changed procedure.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports being aware of the requirement to turn on transponder upon receiving taxi clearance at SLC; but then forgetting to do so. ATC provides a reminder.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Structual inspection
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C RDU
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other drone operator
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This problem arose from confusing the aircraft manufacturer's Geo-fencing with requesting authorization to fly in controlled airspace. After successfully unlocking the manufacturer's Geo-fencing; I incorrectly assumed that I had authorization to fly in Class C airspace. This airspace violation was discovered by my manager during the monthly flight reviews. I now know the difference between unlocking the Geo-fencing and requesting authorization for flight. I will not take flights in controlled airspace until I have the FAA confirmation code.




Synopsis: UAV Operator reported entering Class C airspace without authorization.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On descent into Memphis; we were instructed by ATC to descend to 10;000 feet and maintain 270 knots for spacing. After reaching 10;000 feet and 270 knots; ATC instructed us to descend to 7;000 [feet] and maintain our current speed. We immediately began the descent from 10;000 [feet] but then realized we were still at 270 knots. We asked ATC if they wanted us to maintain 270 knots below 10;000 [feet] because max speed below 10;000 [feet] is usually 250 knots. ATC said yes; they wanted us to maintain 270 knots below 10;000 [feet] for spacing. As we started the descent; we discussed this and thought it might be OK because other airports (such as HKG) give similar instructions on approach; and ATC often approves greater than 250 knots below 10;000 [feet] for performance considerations on climb-out. (Plus; the controller explicitly said that's what he wanted us to do.) However; after I thought about this a little more; I wasn't convinced that ATC was right and I believed the safest thing to do would be to slow down to at least 250 knots and just tell ATC that's what we're doing. At about that moment; ATC instructed us to slow to 210 knots; and the issue became moot. Nevertheless; once we blocked-in; I told my crew I would research this issue and get back to them. My research confirms that 250 knots was the maximum authorized speed at that point in our flight. I will therefore contact my crew and apprise them of this so that none of us make this mistake again. Unintentional non-compliance with an FAR. I will make every effort to review our company FOM and the pertinent FARs with greater diligence.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew was descending towards arrival airport through 10;000 feet. The Approach Controller issued a speed assignment of 270 knots and an altitude assignment of 7;000 feet. The flight crew accepted the clearance and maintained a speed of 270 knots below 10;000 feet in violation of a FAR.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing Runway XX in ZZZ1; the flight attendants reported a 'smell' in the cabin. I continued taxing to the gate. Thinking the smell was from a normal source; engine exhaust; brakes; tires...  The APU bleed was opened to discount the engine bleed. The taxi in was of minimum time. After shut down was complete; I contacted the cabin the smell was then described as a 'dirty sock'. I had the flight attendant open an aft door; after verifying it was disarmed; and a cockpit window was opened to increase air flow through the cabin. The light passenger load was deplaned in minimum time. Maintenance was contacted and Smoke; Odor and Fumes Report was compiled with and sent to maintenance control via duty pilot due to IT issues.Short taxies to a gate are a high threat phase. I was focused on getting the plane to the gate safely. [Reporter suggested] accurate communication between cabin and cockpit crewmembers [during fume events].




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a fumes event during taxi-in. Aircraft was turned over to Maintenance for inspection.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We arrived at Aircraft X with open write ups for the FLT SPLRS and SPOILERONS. MX arrived at the aircraft and preformed a [fix] which cleared the error and preformed a successful ops check. We departed to ZZZZ with indications through the flight normal including with use of spoilers. During approach; upon calling for gear down and selecting flaps to 30; we got the IB FLT SPLRS and IB SPOILERONS msgs. We discontinued the approach; and requested vectors from ATC to work QRH. MSGs did not clear. We then switch to the longer runway; notified the company; and notified the FAs (Flight Attendant) threat we were going to be making an emergency landing; the reason; and let them know we should not need to brace. I elected to call the FAs opposed to using the 3 hi; log notification in order to reduce anxiety on their part. The FAs worked great and effectively prepared the cabin. After completing setup for the other approach and an abbreviated brief (we had briefed ILS XX approach on arrival expecting to get it; but were changed to XYL) we proceeded in for the landing; we landed without event; notified ATC and taxied into the gate. The error seemed to be associated with a failing sensor as explained by MX.


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


Synopsis: CRJ900 flight crew reported IB spoiler and IB spoileron messages resulting in emergency landing.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft had just returned from another flight roughly 15 minutes prior. The pilot contacted Ground Control and permission was granted to taxi to the runway run-up area. Thereafter the pilot performed a takeoff check and the Tower gave clearance for departure. After completing a pre-departure final check; the pilot pushed the throttle to full power and the aircraft accelerated normally down the runway. The aircraft rotated and began to climb out. At roughly 50 feet altitude the pilot heard a change in the sound of the engine's power; and aircraft immediately began losing power and began sputtering. The pilot [tried] all potential available fixes; however the engine continued to falter. The aircraft was leveled off in an attempt to maintain airspeed and the throttle was cycled without result. The pilot determined that there was not sufficient runway left to land and come to a complete stop before the perimeter fence. The engine continued to falter and the pilot set the throttle to idle in preparation for setting the aircraft down in the nearest even area past the end of the runway. When the main gear touched down the pilot engaged the brakes. The aircraft's nose dug in and ultimately the nose gear collapsed. After the aircraft came to a stop the pilot immediately shut off the fuel pump; fuel selector valve; mags and master switch before exiting the aircraft. The pilot then contacted airport operations by cell phone.




Synopsis: Pilot of a single engine retractable aircraft experiences an engine failure shortly after takeoff and lands in an open area off the end of the runway. The nose gear collapses during the landing roll.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Portable
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I discovered that one of the AFT RH MC O2 [right hand main cabin] walk-around units was not in the bracket and the mask/tubing wasn't connected to the bottle but still sealed in the plastic bag prior to boarding. I showed the main cabin flight attendants the problem and told them to be on the lookout for this issue since I have found numerous bottles without the tubing connected and since it is not always obvious that the tubing isn't connected until closer inspection. I reported the issue to the Captain who entered it into the logbook and called Maintenance. The Mechanic arrived shortly thereafter and connected the bottle/tubing correctly. As stated previously; I am not sure why so many bottles are turning up without the tubing connected. I was unaware myself that this was an issue until a fellow flight attendant pointed it out to me well over a year ago. Since then I have redoubled my attention to this during pre-flight checks and have found numerous bottles that were not cabin ready with the tubing attached. As suggested in previous reports; this issue is chronic. If out of all of the flights operated and the few I am working; this is the THIRD O2 bottle found in as many trips. Again; it appears that a thorough check of all O2 bottles across the fleet needs to be accomplished to make sure all bottles are connected. With a fresh start; that would allow emphasis on both Maintenance and Flight Attendant training to identify and correct this issue before someone is left without O2 during an in flight emergency. In talking with many of my flight attendant colleagues; many said they were unaware that they were actually supposed to check that the tubing is connected during pre-flight checks.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reports discovering walk around oxygen bottles without the plastic tubing connected to the bottles on numerous occasions; during preflight. Maintenance is called to correct the problem.