elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Dirty sock smell on takeoff. Donned O2 mask. Asked flight attendants if they smelled it as well; they said no. After ten minutes the smell went away. It wasn't extreme; I've smelled worse. It was also first flight of day. Notified Maintenance and made a logbook entry. Figure out what is causing smell. Is it oil or is it something that is getting into system via ram air intake?




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported odor of smelly socks on takeoff.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain was flying a VFR approach into Runway 10 at ORD. We were assigned 170-180 KTS to the marker as usual. At the marker; we contacted Tower and he instructed us to slow immediately to final approach speed for departing traffic; as usual. A foreign Heavy was cleared for take off and crept onto the runway. We performed Tower approved S-turns to create spacing and landed safely on Runway 10 after the foreign Heavy finally lifted off. ORD ATC needs to increase spacing for departures; especially a foreign Heavy which takes more time to taxi; spool-up; and reach rotation speed for liftoff. Tower should not expect the landing aircraft to destabilize their approach to create the needed spacing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier landing ORD described the need to S-turn on final to allow time for a heavy departure; the reporter noting ATC should increase spacing of arrivals to allow for departures.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Reverser Lockout
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Inspector; Quality Assurance / Audit
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I reviewed and signed-off a Non-Routine [Card] accomplishing Borescope Inspection of Number 1 Engine. Upon review of the attached extended Corrective Action sheet; I noted that all partial work steps had been signed-off by both the Mechanic and Inspector. I reviewed the Corrective Action block on the Non-Routine Card and found the summary of the inspection to be complete and the proper references annotated. At that point I stamped-off the Card. The aircraft was returned to service (not by me) on that evening. The B737 then flew a Non-Revenue flight to ZZZ1; where it was to be staged for flight the next morning. The [Number 1 Engine] Thrust Reverser (T/R) was inoperative (inop) upon landing. I was notified the next day that the Number 1 Thrust Reverser Lockout pin was still installed in the valve which is located in the Left Hand (L/H) Air Conditioning (AC) Bay. The air carrier found our Company's streamer attached to the pin. Someone had closed the AC Bay door without removing the pin or leaving the streamer hanging out. There was no documentation that the TR valves were locked-out; nor that the AC Bay doors were ever opened or closed and therefore I failed to detect that the TR valve was locked out.

Callback: Reporter stated he was working as a Contract Maintenance Provider to an air carrier. The Boroscope Inspection on the CFM-56 Engine Compressor and Turbine blade sections found damage that exceeded limitations; requiring the B737 to be ferried to the Operator's Maintenance Base.



Synopsis: A Contract Maintenance Provider was informed about a Number 1 Engine Thrust Reverser (T/R) on a B737-300 that did not deploy on landing; after he had previously reviewed and signed-off a Non-Routine Card for accomplishment of a Borescope Inspection. A lockout pin with streamer attached was found installed in the T/R Control Valve Module.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Captain was visually flying the EWR Runway 04R approach with the autopilot disengaged. Sky was clear and the winds were 320/15 kts. The flight was stable and on speed at Vpp (final approach speed) 145 kts. At approximately 800-900 feet AGL; the Captain's airspeed suddenly decreased to 80 kts and fluctuated up to 100 kts. Knowing this must be instrumentation failure; I maintained pitch and power and flying duties till I confirmed that the FO instruments were giving correct information. He replied of an airspeed of approximately 150 kts and everything else look good. With this information; I transferred control of the aircraft to the FO who continued the approach uneventfully to landing. Once at the gate; it was confirmed that we had a bird strike directly on the Captain's pitot tube.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a bird strike occurred on the Captain's side pitot tube; causing erratic airspeed fluctuations.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cabin Lighting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While serving snacks and beverages to the first few rows of the coach cabin; I noticed a strong odor of wires burning or melting. The smell was strongest up behind overhead bins at rows 21AB to 25AB. I searched inside the affected overhead bins and found no smoke or fire but then noticed that the side wall lighting fixture above these seats; which was off; had turned black; instead of being the normal opaque color. The Captain was notified. He came back to look and said not to use the sidewall lighting for the rest of the flight.




Synopsis: An observant Flight Attendant detected an overheated side wall lighting fixture aboard a B777 halfway across the Atlantic Ocean. The Captain ordered the sidewall lights to be unpowered for the duration of the flight.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out right engine fire light and horn came on. No loop light; no secondary indications. Did memory items; ran checklist; retarded throttle as per checklist. Light went out; left engine at idle; landed safely.




Synopsis: A MD-80 right engine fire light and horn alerted during climbout with no secondary indications. The QRH was completed and the fire warning ceased with thrust at idle; so the crew returned to land with the engine at idle.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-900
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: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing station passenger service closed the cabin door quite early (approximately 15 minutes). We waited for bags to be loaded into both bins. We noticed that the PERF INIT came up before either door was closed. Closed up and pushed back. [We had a] fairly short taxi and no line for takeoff. We departed west and in the turn to our eastbound course a new PERF INIT came up through the ACARS. As the pilot not flying I started the upload but it indicated a partial upload so I erased it. I grabbed the hard copy off the printer and saw an increase of the zero fuel weight from 133.1 to 133.8 due to gate check bags. I keyed in what I thought was 133.8 stated that out loud and executed it. I failed to get a verbal verification from the pilot flying; who was still hand flying at that time. Climb to initial cruise of FL330 was in process and we realized we were good for FL350 early but that was not unusual as we departed approximately 3;000 LBS lighter than plan. We requested the climb to and were granted FL350. When the FMS said we were good to climb to FL370 we asked for that and were given the climb to FL370. Eventually the FMS said we were able for FL390 and we requested that and we're given FL390. The aircraft struggled to make FL390. Not necessarily unusual being a 900ER; but it seemed to struggle more than normal was having a hard time maintaining the commanded speed. The pilot flying took the initiative to start verbalizing the lack of performance and we started looking for something wrong. The pilot flying realized that the weight was wrong which led us to discover the zero fuel weight was wrong. I had keyed in 113.8 instead of 133.8. I corrected that entry and FMS indicated that we were above max altitude which explained the lack of performance. We requested lower and descended to FL370. Rest of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: After departure a B737-900ER crew received and entered a revised zero fuel weight of 113.8 in the FMS. At FL390 the weight and balance was reexamined because of sluggish performance and the correct weight of 133.8 entered which required a descent to FL370.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Two back to back Go-Arounds performed at SFO. SFO landing Runway 28R/L and departing Runway 01R/L during day VMC. On approach to 28R everything normal and cleared to land 28R by tower. Tower subsequently directs Go-Around due to possible conflict with traffic departing on intersecting runway. Normal Go-Around performed and vectored back for visual approach on 28L. Once again Tower clears us to land. Tower also directs a heavy aircraft to cross approach end of runway 28L and hold short of 28R. Now we are on short final and notice that the heavy has crossed 28L; our runway of intended landing; but has stopped with its tail sticking over the hold short line for 28L. Captain plays it safe and performs a Go-Around. We get vectored back around for another visual to 28L and land normally.Crew did the right thing by performing these two Go-Arounds.In the first Go-Around; SFO tower should not have cleared an aircraft for takeoff on 01 when we were about to land on 28R.Second case; the crew of the heavy needed to pull forward more to ensure aircraft tail was clear of the runway they just crossed.


Second narrative: Increased separation between arriving aircraft would lessen the probability of missed approaches during simultaneous intersecting runway operations.[Increase] air crew situational awareness to ensure entire aircraft is clear of active runway after landing and when crossing active runways.


Synopsis: An aircraft on final to SFO made two go arounds because of conflicting traffic. One was a crossing runway departure traffic and the second was an aircraft not clear of the runway.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; passing approximately 16;000 [feet] MSL; I smelled an acrid; burning odor and saw the MASTER CAUTION and the B Electric Hydraulic Pump 1 Overheat lights illuminate. The Captain and I put on our oxygen masks and began working the problem. The Captain flew and talked on the radios while I ran the appropriate checklist. The Captain [advised ATC]; we returned to [departure airport] and landed uneventfully overweight. ARFF met us after taxiing off the runway and cleared us to taxi to the gate. No damage was noted.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported returning to departure airport after noting burning odor caused by hydraulic pump overheat.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Sea; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was returning to ZZZ from ZZZ1 and encountered a turbulent down rotor on landing approach to a seaplane base.  As a result; the aircraft dropped abruptly and struck the top of a lone 120 ft. tall tree with left wing; about 1/2 way out.  There was no loss of control because of the tree strike; and despite damage to left wing; aircraft flew well; to an uneventful water landing.  The damage is confined to the leading edge of the wing; invoking dented and torn skin between two ribs (about 2 ft.); and slight damage to the leading edge of both of those ribs. There were no injuries to the persons on board. Winds were 10-15 kts. coming over a 500 ft. hill; so no turbulence this strong was expected.  A higher gust must have formed between the two adjacent ridges to explain the down draft. I have [numerous] years and 100's of hours flying seaplanes in the [area]; although I have done most of my flying in [state].As seaplane pilots we are taught to come in low over lake shore trees to minimize the distance required for landings; because there are no distance markers on water; and every 50 ft. of altitude over the trees means up to 1;000 ft. of lake needed to land. I believe I'll stay a bit higher over the trees in mountainous areas in the future.I apologize if this incident doesn't qualify for a report; but as is usual in seaplane flying; everything seems to be a 'gray area'.




Synopsis: Seaplane pilot reported clipping a tree while attempting to land in the water.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SKED.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SKED
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This northbound flight was routed on a less used route northeastward to avoid weather in northern Colombia.  The company utilized Airway UG444 and included a high terrain decision point at 'PETER plus 14 NM'. Prior to the point the instruction was to return along the center line of the route just flown; and after; continue along the route.  Waypoint 'PETER' is located within a couple of miles of the highest mountain peak in Colombia; Pico Cristobal Colon; at nearly 19;000 feet along a generally east/west mountain range.  Fourteen miles north; the decision point; the elevation has dropped dramatically to the nearby Caribbean Sea.  Therefore; an emergency course reversal from a northbound direction would be into rapidly rising terrain instead of descending terrain and the nearby Caribbean coast.  Day VMC conditions prevailed in this high terrain region  so I observed that the SA HI1/2 Chart depictions are consistent with the actual terrain and waypoint PETER location. Dispatch was notified after arriving and I was informed that route would be locked out to prevent use and that an analysis would be made. Review the location of this decision point and why it is used on this route.  If warranted by the findings; review other decision points that may also be in error for similar reason(s).




Synopsis: An air carrier flying North in Colombian airspace changed routes for weather avoidance and on UG444 discovered the mountain near Waypoint PETER is close to a 19;000 foot mountain. An emergency drift down with a course reversal in that area would be into raising terrain.