elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FA 1 blocked the jumpseat area with curtain and locked the lavatory. I told him that we can't do that; the only way we can is if we have wheelchair passenger using the lavatory. He replied that he feels uncomfortable being to close to passengers around his jumpseat . He called the Captain and told him that it was me who wants to keep it close.I told Captain what was going on; FA 1 still refused to do right thing. He locked the back lavatory (put a sticker out of service) on the back lavatory door. It is so wrong. I could not fix this problem. He was very condescending. I told him if he doesn't feel safe with customers he shouldn't be here. We can't make the customers uncomfortable and stop them from using lavatory.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported another Flight Attendant locked the bathroom door and put an out of order sign on it; so he would not have to get close to people.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Not stated
Aircraft component: Pax Seat
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 Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Electrical burning odor was coming from [middle] seat 4A.Flight attendants used PBE (Portable Breathing equipment) and Halon [fire extinguisher] on the seat.Flight Attendant passed out under the PBE and was feeling unwell after the event.2 MD's and 1 EMT attended to the Flight Attendant and deemed him fit to continue with his concurrence. Dispatch was notified and all agreed to continue to ZZZ.I asked inflight to advise me of any adverse changes enroute but there were none reported. Medical assistance met the flight in ZZZ but he refused care upon deplaning.




Synopsis: Flight Attendants reported electrical burning odor from cabin seat and used PBE and a Halon extinguisher on seat which caused a Flight Attendant to lose consciousness. Flight Attendant was checked out and the flight continued.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While trying to takeoff I lost power in right engine. I notified Tower that I needed to taxi back to [the] runway again to try another takeoff [and] that I was also forced to abort due to loss of power. I returned to the ramp and called Dispatch and they transferred the call to Maintenance. With the assistance of Maintenance I did some troubleshooting correcting the problem and then proceeded to continue with the flight. When I got to my filed destination I realize that I did not write anything in the dispatch book and asked Maintenance if they want me to write the loss of power and they were not aware of the problem and after I did explained the problem they told me to NOT WRITE ANYTHING because the plane was going next day to a nearby airport for maintenance. This situation will not happen again; next time I will be writing any discrepancy before I departed from any airport.




Synopsis: A SW4 engine lost power on takeoff so the pilot rejected the takeoff and after performing maintenance on the ramp departed for his destination without making a maintenance log entry.
Date: 201810
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I'm writing to express a general safety concern regarding the new Boeing 757 aircraft configuration for [Company] airlines mainline domestic routes. So many safety issues but my biggest concern is the fact that in order to squeeze more passengers onto the aircraft; they literally put another row of passengers in blocking the exit door at door 2R.Leaving no clear egress if one was required during an actual emergency evacuation. Not only is it a horrid eye sore with all passengers crammed in; it is extremely unnerving to see this configuration roll out this year. [Company] also removed one lavatory while increasing the number of passengers. And reduced the size and space in the mid-galley; taking out virtually all counter/work space; trash receptacle; and drains. While there are still coffee makers there; but nowhere to dump unused hot coffee.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported an unsafe situation relating to adding seats to the Boeing 757 and making it hard to exit the aircraft in an emergency evacuation.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-88
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: Tower DAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Had been vectored for approach to other runway; but recognized that we would be unable to conduct the approach because of the intensity of weather returns on final. We requested and received vectors to the south runway and quickly briefed the approach. We were given a vector to join final and cleared for the approach. At the FAF we configured and began normal descent procedures. We initially had visual contact with the runway but momentarily lost contact as we passed through showers. We failed to recognize our descent through the MDA and were issued a low altitude alert from the Tower Controller and immediately arrested our descent. We were in visual conditions and runway was insight and we continued to landing.Because of the time compression we were unable to give adequate time to brief the new approach and reinforce the nuances of a more complex procedure. Also the dynamic nature of the weather conditions lulled us into complacency and we did not follow through with our briefed procedures and callouts.




Synopsis: After being redirected from their original approach due to weather the flight crew of an MD-88 were not fully prepared for their second; non-precision; approach to another runway and descended below their MDA. A timely low altitude alert from the Tower both prevented further error and allowed the approach to be successfully concluded when the flight crew made visual contact with the runway.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Flight Director
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger showed up one hour early so we both felt rushed for time. We were given the RUUDY 4 departure off of Runway 24. The takeoff brief the First Officer gave said he would takeoff in NAV mode and ask me to select autopilot on at flap retraction and let the autopilot fly the plane since it is a high work load environment. When autopilot was selected on the plane immediately turned to the right which took us off course. I pressed the heading button and the First Officer flew it in heading mode and I reset the autopilot which caused enough distraction for both of us to miss the altitude. We went about 150 FT above the assigned altitude of 1;500 FT. Departure asked us if we were flying the RUUDY 4 departure. I answered that we were flying the RUUDY 4. He then gave us a climb to 10;000 and the rest of the flight was uneventful. What I didn't know; until after the deviation occurred; was that I did not set the flight director mode controller to the First Officer's side. So the autopilot did exactly what I asked it to do. It flew the NAV course that I had set in my side not what the First Officer had set in his side. I did not ensure that my side was set up exactly like the First Officer's. In fact my side was still set to the ILS frequency that we used 5 hours ago when we landed coming into TEB. Had I ensured that the flight director mode controller was set to the First Officer's side there wouldn't have been a deviation. Be much more vigilant and ensure the automation is set up correctly. Not be so rushed even when passengers are asking to leave. Follow the checklist slowly. Be quicker to remove automation when it is distracting. Don't disengage the autopilot. That would have saved us if we would have flown it in bug mode with autopilot engaged.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain reports track and altitude deviations during the RUUDY 4 RNAV departure from TEB due to improper flight guidance setup prior to departure.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I worked a very busy arrival push into the ZZZ Metroplex.  Because of the lack of staffing; I was forced to work [Position 1] and [Position 2] combined with weather and substantial in-trail requirements which I was physically unable to meet.  The entire workload was pushed onto one controller.  During this time; Operations Manager [name] was a direct distraction to the operation of the sector and a detriment to safety.  His loud conversation caused me to have a difficult time hearing the aircraft.  Eventually; I was forced to ask him to have his conversation further than 3 feet away from me.  Of course; this led me to take my focus away from the task at hand; which was the safety of air traffic.There needs to be some reasonable in-trail requirement restrictions from ZZZ-TMU.  If I have to give 15 miles in trail; and I am only receiving 10 in a sector filled with weather the task is near impossible.  Especially; if the majority of my clearances are 'When able' clearances.  There is just not much you can do to conduct a safe operation in such a situation.This is a direct and detrimental distraction to air traffic safety.  I would avoid having managers enter the control room and have loud conversations about things other than air traffic right behind or beside controllers.




Synopsis: Center Controller working combined position reported communication issues with an aircraft after being distracted by a nearby manager having a loud conversation.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other 105
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X reports on frequency for parachute jump activities. Aircraft X advises climbing to 13;500 feet. Controller advise to maintain 12;500 feet and asks how long until ready at that altitude. Controller advises of a delay due to traffic; advises that it may be extensive; and advises other altitude available. Aircraft X advises that he will wait for traffic. Aircraft X calls on frequency and says according to his stop watch etc. he wants to drop. Controller advises 10 minutes till clear of traffic. Aircraft X calls telling controller he's dropping anyway and tells controller to move; vector or hold traffic. Aircraft X is blocking frequency and for at least the 6th time in as many weeks gets into a verbal exchange on the frequency with the controller. Aircraft X is told to 'maintain radio silence' in order to regain control of the frequency. Please do something about this before it becomes a very serious issue.




Synopsis: VFR aircraft requested an altitude to drop parachute jumpers. Controller restricted the aircraft 1;000 feet below its requested altitude and advises there will be a delay for approval for jumpers due to traffic. VFR aircraft releases parachute jumpers anyway and advises Controller to move traffic away from the jump area.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring on this flight. ATC was giving us vectors for a visual approach to RWY XX at ZZZ. We were at 2;000 feet on a right base between waypoints ZZZZZ and ZZZZZ1 (1;500 feet MSL) when we told Approach we had the airport in sight. We were cleared for the visual and told to contact Tower. I said 'glide slope alive' and the First Officer asked for gear down flaps 15. I looked down to select the Tower frequency (which I didn't have preselected) and told them we were on the visual for RWY XX. We were cleared to land. When I saw we were capturing the localizer I noticed that the glide slope was now full scale deflection (low). The First Officer had selected a lower altitude (1;100 feet) on the MCP without telling me and so we were below the final approach fix altitude of 1;500 feet at ZZZZZ1. I called for a go around and we were vectored back around for a successful landing. The cause was a long flight across the country with last minute vectors to final for a visual approach led to the First Officer thinking we were high nearing the FAF and incorrectly setting an altitude lower than glideslope intercept altitude without verbally advising the Captain.




Synopsis: B-737-800 Captain reported an uneventful 'go around' due to a CFIT event during final approach.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PDK
ATC / advisory: Tower PDK
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I approached PDK from the NE; and joined the right downwind for Runway 3R. I found that I had turned downwind a little too late at this point; and looking out my right window saw that assigned Runway 3R was about a quarter up from the strut of my aircraft - much closer than I should be.I started to turn a bit to the left to increase this distance; and then was cleared to land #2 behind traffic. When parallel to the runway numbers; Tower advised that the traffic to follow was over the numbers about to touch down; and that there was traffic also cleared to land on the parallel Runway 3L. I responded that I had visual of the traffic about to touch down that I was to follow. I did not see the parallel traffic at this time.As I was getting ready to turn base I noticed that I was still much closer than I should have been to the runway. I turned base with a plan to continue the turn to final to account for my close approach. When halfway through this turn I noticed that the traffic on final for the parallel runway was just ahead and to the right of me.For a brief moment I was unsure of what to do; as I did not want to continue straight which would put me against the traffic flow for 3L; and I was not sure if I could safely continue my turn to Runway 3R without getting dangerously close to the parallel traffic. I elected to perform a sharp left turn to ensure I could get behind conflicting traffic; then turned right to finish my turn onto final. By the time I had completed my right turn I was aligned with Runway 3L and directly behind the traffic. I turned right to align with Runway 3R; and landed with no other notable events.There was no communication about this incident from the conflicting traffic or ATC. I'm not sure if either of them saw what had happened. I do not believe that fatigue or other physiological effects played a role in this incident. Reflecting on this event I believe that this situation should have been prevented by requesting an extended downwind to correct my distance from the runway.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC during final approach to PDK airport requiring evasive action.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 4
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
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; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: My student and I were on final; crossing the displaced threshold; on Runway XX at ZZZ; when all of sudden; there was a jet no more than 50 feet to our right. My student was in shock. The instant I saw the jet it appeared to be about the same altitude as us but then it started climbing out. We continued to land - he was climbing out; so I thought we were safer on the ground - taxied off and came back to take off again. We saw the jet disappear into the clouds.As we were taxing back to takeoff I received a text from my next student who was in my office asking what just happened and saw the jet climbing out. We took off again; looking for the jet; thinking he was probably going to come back around. We were on final again when we heard the jet call a right downwind for Runway XX. I said to him ZZZ is a left pattern and there was traffic in that left pattern. Then I asked him if he was the same jet that damn near ran us over on final moments before. He said he was talking to us but we must not have heard him.When he called the right downwind was the FIRST time we ever heard him on the radio. And; that was also the first time my student in the office heard him also. He was listening on his radio. We had also been talking to at least 2 other planes while we were in the pattern. We were not experiencing any radio issues. It was hazy but VFR and I had no problem seeing other traffic; except [for] traffic that was behind us and not talking. It is my opinion that he probably was released from ATC and didn't switch frequencies. But; ATC always tells you before they release you if there is traffic in the pattern. At least they have always done that for me. I believe the jet lives at ZZZ also. In the 30 plus years I have been flying and the 25 plus years of teaching; I have never been that close to any other traffic.




Synopsis: PA28 flight instructor reported experiencing an NMAC on final.