elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While getting ready for departure; the First Officer brought to my attention the fact that he smelled some odor coming from the Dangerous Goods pallet in position 1.  I went to inspect the pallet myself after the Hazmat Specialist was notified and was present. I confirmed the First Officer's findings and smelled the odor as well. The rest of the crew smelled it (second First Officer); and agreed on it too. The Hazmat spill specialist in ZZZ was contacted via phone; and we agreed with the senior specialist and followed her directives for removing the pallet for verification;  and accountability. The process to accomplish such a task exceeded the time available for departure; and leaving the pallet at the station for processing was the preferred option to avoid further delays. A new Weight and Balance was calculated and received. No further incidents.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported an undefined odor emanating from Dangerous Goods pallet. After conferring with the DG specialist the pallet was removed; flight crew completed an uneventful flight.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During takeoff I over rotated and experienced adverse yaw. Landed the aircraft causing skin damage.


Second narrative: Aircraft Checkout. Left seat pilot was a CFI-AI with over 3;000 hours. I asked him who would be PIC. Since he was an owner (club aircraft; new to the S-LSA airplane) he said he would be PIC. I was in the right seat as check pilot. I had flown the airplane three times for a total of 1.0 hour; as a maintenance check flight (solo) prior to its return to service two years ago.PIC lost control of the aircraft at rotation; high pitch attitude...aircraft departed the runway to the right. It was very confusing as it seemed the aircraft had the ailerons hooked up backwards. Pilot was commanding left turn; left aileron; but the aircraft was going right. In hind sight I believe this was due to EXTREME ADVERSE YAW with aileron deflection. Pilot was definitely out of control; not getting the expected result from his inputs.I heard him mutter; 'Your aircraft;' I cut the power; lowered the nose and was able to land on the runway; going sideways now right to left. We departed the left side of the runway with the left main gear (tricycle gear).Upon inspection; we damaged the right wingtip (on takeoff departing to the right); and damaged the left wingtip; and bent the skin on the outboard part of the left aileron (after landing; trying to stay on the runway).I believe this incident happened due to the ASTM Standard; and unexpected control response at slow speed and high AOA.


Synopsis: During the initial takeoff for an LSA checkout two instructors describe a loss of control incident from their perspective; resulting in aircraft damage and a runway excursion.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SFB
ATC / advisory: Tower SFB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working CIC I was mostly monitoring the high-volume (6 or so aircraft in the south pattern) training at LC2 but was asked to help out GC with the creation of an hourly ATIS broadcast and to take numbers for the traffic count. It seemed as though the trainee and trainer had things under control at that point; but the next thing I saw after just beginning the ATIS recording was two [small high wing single engine aircraft] on short final in approximately the same position for Runway 9R. The process to get them apart again was already being ordered but it certainly appeared that the two aircraft were 'very' close to each other; and I mean like no more than 20 ft apart. It even appeared at one point that the aircraft slightly trailing had to dip his wing to get around the other. I am to believe that one of them was forgotten about on the downwind and turned base on his own only to be unseen by the personnel in the tower cab and by anyone in either airplane until the very last moment. I was relieved soon after the incident and can only assume that the pilots filed quite-appropriate NMAC reports. An automated ATIS to reduce the 'heads down' time would of certainly kept me in the game and watching the complex situation going on. We're just getting through this most recent round of recurrent training to which it says that the CIC should keep in mind the skill levels of both the OJTI and the OJT when training is in progress and perhaps I failed at that a bit; but again it seemed as though they had things under control when my attention was diverted to more mundane tasks. I'm not sure if the pair had already accomplished the training; but it apparently didn't work and things got out of hand before the OJTI could do something about it.




Synopsis: SFB Controller while working as CIC observes two aircraft about 20 feet apart being worked by the local control.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp; Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were unloading a ZZZ1 inbound [on date] we were short a fleet service clerk initially when the flight arrived; because the other clerk did not show up to the gate. Crew Chief did not give no upload sheet; did not notify that there was a Dangerous Goods package in aft bulk. I realized the event occurred because I was called into the managers office for investigation. Two shop stewards were present.  The event occurred because of poor communication of the crew chief; and the other clerk not showing up on time for the flight. There was no briefing before the flight. They assigned me [late notice] and gave me a rover and I arrived to the flight with no pre-arrival briefing. Proper communication with the Crew Chief and a pre-arrival briefing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier ramp personnel reported being notified of Dangerous Goods package mistakenly left in aft cargo compartment.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: CAVU
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Radio communication with ZZZ Center was not established over State X enroute on a flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1.  I was able to re-establish radio communication with ZZZ1 Center North of City X on frequency XYZ.AB using the number 2 communications radio.  I regularly fly this route and I know most of the high altitude center frequencies by memory.  While speaking with ZZZ1 Center I was advised to call ZZZ Center after landing.  My normal procedure is to monitor 'On-Guard XYX.BC with the number 2 radio; however; there was an ELT transmitting.  The XYX.BC frequency was congested and was only occasionally monitored to wait for the ELT transmission to dissipate.  The number 2 radio was operating with much less static than the number 1 radio.  After landing I spoke to the pilot that previously flew the aircraft and they confirmed that the number 1 radio has been having reception issues.  The number 1 radio was troubleshot and found to have a bonding issue between the fuselage and number 1 communications antenna due to corrosion.  The antenna is in the process of being replaced. In conclusion; improved aircraft maintenance would have prevented this event.As a side note: I have noticed more 'NORDO' events since the COVID-19 pandemic began. Now; a day does not go by that an aircraft is not being summoned to remedy a 'NORDO' situation.  Previously; these events were less.  I speculate that a change in ATC staffing and increased size of control boundaries for one Controller to be responsible is a possible contributing factor.  I notice now that the high sector controllers (usually working FL260 and above) are working considerably larger areas including the low sector.  It is now not uncommon to hear a high sector Controller clearing low altitude aircraft for approaches and handing them off to Local Approach ATC. Juxtaposed to this increased workload for the Controller is less flying for air crew.  The reduced flying during this pandemic may contribute to these 'NORDO' events due to crews having reduced flying schedules and reduced recent experience."




Synopsis: Pilot reported not being able to contact a Center Control due to aircraft radio communication issues and frequency saturation.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: [My aircraft] started to descend due to loss of power. I was level at 12;000 ft; at 2600 RPM; air temp was 12C and when a light drizzle of rain started; the temperature dropped to 4C. I noticed a noise change in the engine; dropping down to 2200 RPM. This happened right after a light drizzle of rain started. The airspeed went from 93 knots indicated; and was dropping below 60 knots indicated. At 75 knots; I disconnected the autopilot to make sure the aircraft wouldn't stall; then reported to ATC that we were unable to maintain 12;000 ft; and needed vectors and a lower altitude immediately. The aircraft lost approximately 400 ft before the engine began to produce max power and was able to maintain altitude. I noticed the power came back after I was clear of the light drizzle rain. I would suspect induction ice was the cause of this event.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a power loss that led to an altitude deviation that was probably related to carburetor icing.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skywagon 185
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Returning to ZZZ turned over to tower mid change; informed number three to land then number four to land. Overtaking slower aircraft informed tower performing 360 for spacing. Left 360 performed. Cleared to land by tower. Final approach; slight crab for wind 250 at 10. Approach speed normal. Slight left aileron opposite rudder to compensate for crosswind. Touchdown right rudder applied aircraft started going slightly left full right rudder applied since tail wheel down. Plane continued on course towards first exit from runway. At exit; going less than 5 mph; tail swung to right and gear collapsed.




Synopsis: C185 pilot reported ground looping during the last part of the landing rollout in crosswind conditions.
Date: 201209
Location: BUF.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: In cruise with autopilot on; we encountered wake turbulence near BUF; one bump and that was all. Clear skies with no traffic in sight nor reported in the vicinity. When the Purser called to tell us he was submitting the cabin write ups; which was about 30 minutes after the bump; he also mentioned he was writing up that he may have tweaked his back during the turbulence. The Purser appeared to continue to do his duties without difficulty.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additonal information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported turbulence from a wake vortex encounter in cruise flight that resulted in a minor back injury to a flight attendant.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Fan
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was informed by my supervisor that an aircraft I worked on as an inspector had a #1 Engine [Vibration] Amber during climb. Pilot ran QRH and after 5 min. amber went away. Message came up again in cruise. Pilot ran QRH again after power reduction. We sent a crew of 2 for a road trip to address the issue along with what looks like had a bird strike event on said engine. The corrective action was that they found engine fan blades 21 and 23 on left engine to have bumpers missing and found later at the units hub.On my first day of the week on ZZZ Company hangar; I was informed by the supervisor that we had an aircraft with a dual engine blade and blade pin replacement due to flight crew reporting L/H (left hand) engine amber LP (Low Pressure) vibration of 4.0 on climb. I was the inspector on duty. When I got to work; all engine blades and pins had been removed. They had one mechanic per each engine and I was the inspector for both. We performed all maintenance IAW (in accordance with) ST Cards and maintenance manuals as required. I was there for the installation of all blades from start to finish; including bumper gap inspection.I am submitting this report in case of an assumption that we might have deviated from any maintenance procedure. We did not. This is a way for me to tell my side of the situation. Like I said I was there for all the installation process and I believe that if somehow the bumpers where incorrectly installed it would have reflected on the blade gap checks and at the time they were all within engine specs. It is also important to notice that said aircraft had a bird strike ingestion event resulting in some blade damage on said engine location. I hope this information helps. Thank you.




Synopsis: Inspector reported two fan blade bumpers were left out after reinstalling the left hand engine fan blades after routine maintenance. This caused excessive vibration on the left hand engine on climb out.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On TKOF passing 12;000 feet Cabin Pressure regulator 1 & 2 faulted. Transferred control of the aircraft. Copilot attempted to regain control of the pressurization manually but was unable. Cabin climbing at same rate as aircraft and we received a cabin pressurization warning. We donned O2 masks; declared an emergency and requested a descent to 10;000 feet with ATC. While turning toward the airfield on a vector from ATC and descending the airspeed momentarily went into the zipper approximately 10 knots. After leveling off at 10;000 feet the First Officer continued to attempt to regain pressurization using the manual controls. We requested vectors to stay in the area while we contacted maintenance and Dispatch. During that time we regained control of the outflow valves manually and upon direction from Dispatch we cancelled the emergency with ATC and requested ATC refile us direct to destination.


Second narrative: On takeoff passing 12;000 feet cabin pressure regulators 1 and 2 faulted and captain took control of aircraft so I could run the QRH. Cabin was climbing at same rate as aircraft. I went on oxygen; declared an emergency; and started to use cabin pressure manual control checklist. When turning back toward airport and descending we momentarily went into the zipper 10 knots. After leveling off at 10;000 feet I was able to control pressurization using manual control and we cancelled emergency. We received extended vectors to communicate with company to see what they wanted us to do. Dispatch wanted us to continue directly to destination; so we coordinated with ATC to fly to destination.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew experiences failure of both automatic pressurization controllers during climbout resulting in a cabin altitude warning. The aircraft is brought back down to 10;000 feet while the pressurization system is examined. The First Officer is able to gain control of the outflow valve manually and the flight continues to destination.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had to de-ice so we proceeded to the de-ice pad. Everything was normal until the post de-ice report. The person providing the 'report' said we were clear and had Type I and Type IV applied. The captain inquired about the rest of the report and we were met with silence. A few moments later (after the supervisor returned; I think); the original person replied with the remaining information. I have de-iced in multiple airports and have always received a standard format; without prompting; from a professional de-ice crew. This individual appeared to be new and either not remember their training or not have been trained. This person had no business being involved in such a safety sensitive operation.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported the de-ice crew did not provide crew with standard information post de-ice procedure.