elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Supertug once again losing air conditioning under tow.  This time longer time is taken in between tows for air conditioning recharge and cool cabin.  Unable to open windows to get more air flow as we would no longer be able to hear air to ground radios.  Excessive perspiration due to humidity limiting vision.Water not easily accessible.  No longer provided.




Synopsis: Supertug driver reported the air conditioning on the tug failed while towing an aircraft making the working environment challenging.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
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: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We were] originally scheduled through icing while single PACK. We were cruising along at FL240 on schedule and around 30 minutes into the flight L BLEED DUCT Warning. The Captain immediately assumed controls and radio responsibilities (he was PF) and called for the BLEED DUCT Warning QRH checklist. We proceeded to descend to 10;000 feet after [notifying ATC] and picked an appropriate [alternate] destination as it was right in front of us and we knew it had sufficient runway distances. After; we ACARSed Dispatch to inform him of the event and planned destination; we never heard back and relied on ATC for updated weather and NOTAMS. We successfully fully completed the QRH checklist and had a successful/uneventful landing. The Captain decided we would deplane and allow the passengers inside as this mechanical issue could take significant time to fix. We sat around the airport running maintenance checks with the outstation maintenance for a couple of hours; it was [late at night] at this time and scheduling was trying to extend us until [early morning hours] to complete the flight on the same aircraft. We decided we did not feel comfortable working the flight until those early hours on an extension after the stress we just went through but the chief pilot said that was not a 'valid excuse' to cancel the flight; so the Captain called in fatigued and the flight ended up getting canceled.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported diverting to an alternate after experiencing L BLEED DUCT warning in cruise flight.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PBI.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Second aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed PBI and climbed to 12;000 FT.  Aircraft Y; 15 miles east of PBI on a 090 heading talking to MIA center.  I noticed a VFR tag at 7;500 FT that had dropped off passing over the RADAR antenna and stopped Aircraft X at 7;000 FT to avoid traffic.  Aircraft X was on the IVNKA1 RNAV departure off PBI going to ZZZ.  I called the traffic.  He had the VFR on TCAS.  The VFR then turned and started descending rapidly into Aircraft X.  I immediately took action by turning Aircraft X off the RNAV SID to a 090 heading to avoid the VFR aircraft descending into him to his left.  In turning him; I was basically splitting the difference between the VFR and the IFR Aircraft Y East bound to MYAF already on ZMA climbing out of 6;000 FT for 7;000 FT on a 090 heading.  Because Aircraft X was also climbing out of 6;000 FT for 7;000 FT; I believe I may have had less than 3 miles separation between him and Aircraft Y.  I knew they were separated as did the pilot of Aircraft X.  I chose the safer of 2 situations knowing I would have a loss of separation.  My only recommendation would be to give PBI a Class Bravo airspace based on the amount of IFR and VFR traffic they work.  Having VFR pilots not talking to anyone and able to climb and descend as they wish in an airspace this busy is unsafe and a disservice to the flying public.




Synopsis: PBI Controller described a conflict event when IFR departure traffic had to be vectored off the SID to avoid descending VFR traffic; the reporter suggesting PBI be given a Class B to preclude future similar type events.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ALB.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ALB
ATC / advisory: TRACON ALB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: EGPWS on approach into ALB.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a CFTT event during approach to ALB airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Other Laser
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On approach at 3;000 MSL a laser on left side aircraft targeted aircraft. I caught a hit in left eye causing great discomfort and blurriness. Was able to land. It should not have happened.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain was struck by a laser at 3;000 FT on approach but landed safely while experiencing blurred vision and eye discomfort.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: When we started feeling the bumps the seat belt sign should have been put on immediately. Instead we had to use our own judgment. We were in the middle of service when the turbulence started. Flight Attendant #2 and I wedged the cart and took a seat. The seat belt sign was not turned on. It started smoothing out and we continued with service. Then it started to get turbulent again. Still no seat belt or announcements. We made the decision to take the cart back and run drinks. Flight Attendant #2 was is the back galley fixing drinks while I ran them. That is when we hit severe turbulence. It felt like we dropped. That is when we were told to be seated immediately and the seat belt came on. I was in the aisle and grabbed onto seats as I was picked up off the floor. Flight Attendant #3 was in the front galley and thrown to the floor. She was alright though. Flight Attendant #2 on the other hand was thrown up against the door and the cart came at her. I heard her scream and got to her as fast as I could. When it was safe to do so. The Captain had us check in and we told him about Flight Attendant #3. He said the turbulence was unexpected and they would be out of it.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported another Flight Attendant was injured in a turbulence encounter after being struck by a galley cart.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EQY.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G EQY
ATC / advisory: CTAF EQY
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: My student who I was instructing at the time made his departure call from Runway 23 at Monroe. We cleared the runway visually and didn't see anyone. I always look at our oil pressure and temperature and verify airspeed alive which it was. We rotated at 60h and began to climb out. At about that time I saw another small aircraft right in front of us climbing out from opposite runway. I couldn't believe it! Where the hell did this aircraft appear from! Evasive action was needed so I took control and turned to the right approximately 30 degrees bank and 40 degree angle change to avoid collision. I called out frustrated but not mad aircraft departing Monroe opposite direction didn't you hear us announce departure to which they replied 'no we did not'. Going deeper into how this situation I think developed was the light and variable wind we had and the confusion it can create for which runway should be used. Also my student has a strong accent. Could it be the other pilots in the other plane didn't understand him? We had completed a radio check on UNICOM and had received a loud and clear so I know our radios were functioning properly. Another factor maybe our runway is highest in the middle and could have made it harder to see another aircraft 7;000 [feet] opposite end to see coming. This concludes my description of events of the runway incursion.




Synopsis: Small aircraft instructor reported on takeoff traffic took off opposite direction resulted in taking evasive action. Instructor reported runway is higher in the middle which may block transmissions.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on very short final to Runway 28R at SFO when we noticed an aircraft on the runway. I immediately asked tower to confirm whether the runway was clear or not. He came back and said that the preceding aircraft would be airborne soon. While this was going on; another aircraft was taking off of Runway 1R and intersecting our flight path. Both aircraft were clearly in conflict with our landing clearance-especially if one had aborted their takeoff since we were already so close to the runway. In other words; I highly doubt we would have been able to execute a go-around (basically an aborted landing at that point) had either one aborted their respective takeoff. The controller; when I said that that was way too close and dumb; came back with a comment to the tune of 'I've been here 26 years and know what I'm doing'. Well; I've been flying airplanes longer than that and still know I'm capable of a mistake. This controller doesn't feel he's capable of making a mistake. THAT's WHATS DANGEROUS. SFO tower needs to realize that they are pushing the limits of safety; especially at night when visual cues are very poor or lacking completely. I've been flying in and out of SFO my entire career; having been based there for all but one of those years (19 years total). I know the airport and traffic flow. I know what tower likes to do with spacing and I also know when it isn't safe. This was not safe for anyone involved.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a Tower Controller's landing and arrival sequence plan was unsafe.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The problem started when the cockpit went completely black momentarily (2-3 seconds). About the time we were able to process what happened everything came back on. This was immediately followed by 2 amber lights (L GEN OFF and R GEN TIE OPEN) with the associated master caution flasher. Before we could even pull the checklist to deal with the abnormal I noted pressure in my ears and looked to see the cabin rate showing an increase of 1;200 to 1;500 FPM. Already having a cabin altitude of 9;000 FT I judged the uncontrolled pressure increase to be the primary problem at the time. I directed my SIC to inform Center that we needed an immediate descent to 15;000 FT.After 2 attempts to get a descent clearance with no response from Center I disengaged the autopilot and initiated a descent. We were later able to raise Center in the blind on a known frequency for the area and received clearance for the rest of the descent. During the descent the CABIN ALT HI and master warning flasher came on and the passenger O2 masks deployed. At that time the crew donned their O2 masks. After establishing the descent and coming thru approximately FL180 we were able to bring the L GEN and R GEN TIE back to normal status and clear both amber lights. By my observation as soon as the caution lights were resolved we regained control of the pressurization.Upon leveling off at 15;000 FT we assessed the situation and the aircraft was then working normally. Our location was about 100 NM from our destination. Having a functioning aircraft at the time; I elected to continue on and land at our destination. The rest of the flight was without incident.




Synopsis: A King Air 350 flight crew initiated an emergency descent when a temporary electrical failure resulted in a loss of pressurization at FL310.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff after V1; rotated aircraft; nose was off ground; mains rolling; felt aircraft shudder; and two bangs; rotated and continued to fly aircraft. At about 150 ft felt aircraft right engine start to bang; concluded we didn't blow a tire on takeoff; and retracted gear and [advised ATC].  Flight was handed off to Departure due to weather; continued to climb to clean up altitude; accelerated; disengaged autothrottle; reduced power on right engine. FO got out the QRH; we accomplished the engine procedure; shut off right engine. Loaded the approach and was vectored too close to approach. Re-vectored to 10 mile final; single engine landing on runway; landing at about 136;500 pounds; less than 150 FPM touchdowns; cleared runway. Had Fire Personnel inspect aircraft before taxiing to gate.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported an inflight engine shutdown after experiencing a compressor stall on the #2 engine at rotation.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center CZYZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: 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
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: From a cruising altitude of FL260; Toronto Center issued a clearance 'Descend to FL240; descend via the NUBER2 arrival.'  We immediately started down to FL240; and continued our descent via the arrival procedure.  Passing through FL230; the Controller asked what altitude we were going to.  We explained we were descending via the arrival; to cross ROKTO between 14;000 and 12;000. The Controller explained that the newly adopted 'descend via' phraseology in Canada does not allow us to descend below a given altitude.  After multiple inquiries; we were finally able to understand that the intention of the clearance is to descend to the given altitude and comply with the arrival restrictions.  He said there has been a lot of confusion in the first week of these new clearances; and didn't seem concerned.The 'descend via' clearance is used differently in the United States and Canada; so crews should be sure to verify with Canadian controllers what is expected of them.  Unlike the United States; a descend via clearance in Canada does not allow a descent all the way to the lowest altitude; but the specific assigned altitude.




Synopsis: Hawker 800 First Officer reported an altitude deviation occurred that arose from the difference in 'descend via' clearances between Canada and the United States.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was doing a touch and go. After landing; retracted flaps and applied takeoff power. About 2 or 3 seconds later; at about 50 knots; the aircraft started turning right because of a blown right tire. I reduced the power to idle and applied full [left] rudder and brake. The aircraft left the runway onto a grass surface and stopped about 50 feet from the edge of the runway; aimed 90 degrees [to] the right of runway direction. The tail struck the ground damaging the bottom of the rudder.




Synopsis: RV-10 pilot reported a runway excursion and minor damage to the aircraft after the right tire blew out on the takeoff roll.