elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through FL230 the LE FLAP TRANSIT light illuminated. The Captain declared an emergency with ATC and descended to FL200 and slowed to less than 230 knots. The Captain was the PM and QRH procedures were followed. Dispatch was notified via ACARS and Operations was notified via voice for gate information. Normal approach and landing. Maintenance determined the sensor was inoperative.


Second narrative: No substantive additional information was provided in the secondary narrative.


Synopsis: When they received a LE FLAPS TRANSIT warning as they passed through FL230 the flight crew of a B737-800 declared an emergency and returned to their departure airport. Maintenance determined it was a flap sensor problem.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 10000 feet; I discovered the curtain tie back was missing . Cabin discrepancy was submitted to pilots. Tie curtain back up in knots for landing.Fleet wide inspection and note to flight attendants explaining that the tie is required and only approved restraining means.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Attendant reported a curtain restraint missing in cabin area.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
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
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First Officer seated in the passenger section dressed in his uniform deadheading back to ZZZ; did not have his mask covering his nose and mouth the entire flight back to ZZZ. He did not eat or drink anything. I eventually had to tell him to pull up his mask and which he gave me a crazy look.I feel as flight attendants we have enough to do in policing revenue passengers and shouldn't have to police for passengers who work for the company and understand the mask policy and not want to comply. Employees trying to get away with not complying with the policy.  It's getting out of hand.He gave me a look; but he put his mask on.Make sure the First Officer understands; abide by the rules; and starts taking the policy serious or else lose flight benefits for not complying. It's not a good look for passengers seeing pilots dressed in uniform not complying with the policy.




Synopsis: Flight attendants reported that a deadheading pilot did not follow face mask policy during the flight.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After departure; during climb out between 400-600 AGL the flight attendant(s) notified the flight deck of smoke in the cabin. Immediately following the call the flight deck was alerted with Master Flasher(s) and audible alert. The decision was made to not take hand off to departure; stay with tower and [request priority handling] at this time (Aircraft at 3000 feet). We were cleared for the visual and cleared to land. Turning final; the ACARS landing data was returned showing an overweight condition as suspected; the decision was made to proceed operating under the assumption trusting the visual/aural alerts and land overweight. Operations and dispatch were notified prior to landing; trucks were rolled and once aircraft reached the gate dispatch; maintenance control were contacted as well as the Regional Chief.When the flight attendants alerted the flight deck; they did so with a normal call. I knowing the crew knew something was wrong and took the call; should this be another Captain; the call may not have been answered. When making an overweight landing; the vertical speed at countdown is critical; why not have the pilot monitoring make vertical calls during landing for a more controlled touchdown. This smoke was apparently caused by an engine run the night before (2nd time this has happened this month from what I was told) not being ran long enough; a more thorough checklist by maintenance?




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain was informed by the flight attendants at low altitude; during departure; of smoke in the cabin. Immediately after a smoke warning was annunciated in the cockpit. The flight returned to the departure airport for an overweight landing. The smoke was apparently caused by an engine wash the night before with Maintenance not running the engine long enough to rid the compressor of residual chemicals.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a descent to 4;000 FT into LGA; passing through 4;500 MSL; approximately 2 miles south of Manhattan I saw a small object coming into view in front of the airplane and slightly to the right of the nose. At first I thought it may be a large bird or a mylar balloon; but as it passed by us; approximately a few hundred feet below our flight path and a few hundred feet to our right I could see distinctly that it was a small remote control airplane; traveling in roughly the opposite direction. I didn't have more than perhaps a one or two second glance at it; and couldn't see any more detail; other than a rough size of about 2 to 3 feet and mostly white in color. My First Officer never saw it; but we briefly discussed that it seemed important enough to report to ATC; so we did. The flight continued on our assigned path; north up the Hudson River to a visual approach to 22 a few minutes later. On the ground; I called the phone number for New York TRACON given to us in flight to provide more details about the event. I gave them what little details I had from the sighting; and then they asked me to call another phone number for NYPD's aviation division to recapitulate. Since my First Officer hadn't been able to see the airplane; and no other airplane on the frequency seemed to report it while we were on that frequency I was beginning to question myself; but the Controller I spoke to over the phone as well as the NYPD Officer both quickly noted that they had received numerous reports of the same nature in the last few weeks concerning remote control airplanes in almost the same spot at similar altitudes. I don't know why a remote control airplane would be flying that high or in that position; perhaps someone was flying it much lower and it got out of range of their transmitter and was just flying away in a stable attitude but no longer in control. Once I realized what the object was; I asked my First Officer if he saw it; but he didn't. I spoke to an Officer who took the information about the event and told me that they were responding to the sighting already because they have been receiving so many of the same reports lately and it seems to be becoming a problem. I would say that ATC seemed particularly interested in knowing about sightings of this nature; so I would suggest pilots report it when they see it.




Synopsis: DHC8 Captain reports encountering model aircraft at 4;500 FT just south of Manhattan during approach to LGA.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A CRJ7 was on a vector to join localizer with approach clearance to Runway 12L at 4;000 FT MSL. An E170 was cleared for approach at 5;000 to Runway 12R. One and one half miles of separation is required when both aircraft are established on localizers. The E170 was given the approach clearance when I noticed the CRJ7 was approximately 1/2 mile off localizer at 4;000 and less than three miles from the E170. I attempted to stop the E170 at 5;000; but the aircraft had already departed that altitude. With hold approach clearance until both aircraft are established on localizer.




Synopsis: M98 Controller described a technical loss of separation event when traffic was issued an approach clearance as parallel traffic drifted off the localizer.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On with Center into Las Vegas airport; we were descending via the Tyssn arrival and we were leveling off at a crossing restriction at 10;000 FT. At that time the aircraft went into ALT CONSTRAINT * as the bottom of the arrival with set for 8;000 FT. The aircraft activated the approach at that time as we passed a deceleration point and I reached up and selected 210 KTS for the next crossing restriction. When I looked back up the aircraft had reverted to VERTICAL SPEED from ALT CONSTRAINT and was descending below 10;000 FT. We were just prior to our 10;000 FT crossing point so I quickly selected 10;000 FT and returned us to our altitude I believe we had gotten down to 9;500 FT before the descent reversal. Upon reaching 10;000 FT Air Traffic Control cleared us down to 8;000 FT and we continued our flight with no disruption. After landing I talked to a couple of the instructors at the company and no one could figure out why the aircraft reverted to vertical speed. I guess we came to the conclusion that the aircraft Captured alt constraint star at the same time that it crossed the deceleration way point and this caused the aircraft to go into vertical speed.I guess we could have activated the approach our own to prevent this but I do not know if we would want to do that approaching a crossing restriction so we would have had to activate the approach sooner.

Callback: The reporter stated that the perfect storm of transitions apparently occurred at the 10;000 FT ALT CONSTRAINT * when the aircraft also began slowing for the 210 KTS restriction and simultaneously transitioned to Approach Activate. At that point; uncertain what its next action was; the FMGC transitioned to a VERT SPD default mode and began a descent to 8;000 FT. This confluence of events may be a design fault where the activation priorities are not clearly defined. This reporter's work around is to select Managed Speed prior to the deceleration point so that the automatic speed transition is not allowed.



Synopsis: An A319 flying the TYSSN RNAV STAR was leveling at 10;000 FT ALT CONSTRAINT * for SUZSI and began slowing to 210 KTS. As the 8;000 FT PRINO constraint was selected; the FMGC transitioned to VERT SPD and began a descent which the crew arrested.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
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: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I (seated in the left seat operating as the Relief Pilot) noticed the left engine oil pressure light flickering. The PIC was on his crew rest break in cabin while these events were transpiring. I informed the First Officer who was the flying pilot and reached for the Captain's QRH. Subsequently the left engine oil pressure went below the red limit. Recognizing the seriousness of the moment; we elected to run the appropriate checklists which involved an engine shutdown prior to getting the captain back to the flight deck. We had declared the emergency event immediately and were descending to FL240 and had received the diversion airport weather all prior to the Captain's return. I experienced a slight delay in getting a Flight Attendant to summon the Captain but this proved to inconsequential. The Captain resumed command upon his return and affected a good landing in good weather. All three flight deck members did a post flight visual inspection of the left engine and saw fluid from the lower part of the engine on the tarmac.


Second narrative: I was the Captain. At the time of the incident I was on break in the crew rest seat. I was informed by the Purser that I was needed in the cockpit. When I got to the cockpit I was told that the left engine had been shutdown due to total loss of oil quantity and a low pressure warning light. An emergency had already been declared and we were descending to FL240. A diversion was also in progress. I got in the seat and accomplished the engine shutdown checklist. I then gave the Purser the emergency landing brief items; followed by a PA to the passengers.


Synopsis: A B757 crew declared an emergency and diverted to an enroute airport after the left engine oil pressure decreased and quantity indicated empty.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was PM (Pilot Monitoring) on leg ZZZ to ZZZ1. We received takeoff clearance and subsequently saw red hold lights. The PF (Pilot Flying) immediately pulled back the power at a very low airspeed and we queried ATC. They cancelled our takeoff clearance and replied they were getting a false target at the departure end.Good recognition by the Pilot Flying. I don't think ATC has any control over that system but perhaps they could provide recommendations as well to eliminate false targets.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a rejected takeoff after the red runway lights illuminated when the power was advanced.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our clearance was to cross 40 east of ZZZ at 15000 ft. Autopilot was engaged; VNAV; on path; speed 325kts. Our radar indicated no precipitation before entering clouds at 22;000 ft. Upon entering the clouds the airspeed began to rise; so I extended speed brakes; airspeed slowed to below the commanded speed and the autothrottles increased to maintain this speed; at which point I stowed the speedbrakes; causing the A/S to increase rapidly. At this point I engaged V/S and airspeed continued to rise. I then disengaged the autopilot and initiated a climb to reduce the speed; but not before we had exceeded VMO/MMO by 25-30 KTS. With convective activity in the area I should have chosen a lower airspeed for our descent. All the weather that we were painting on our radar was 5-10 miles west; leading me to believe that we were OK with the chosen speed. I was unprepared for the speed in which this situation developed (15-20 Sec). After reflection on the event; I believe I should have chosen flight level change instead of V/S or better yet disengage the autopilot altogether. I faced a situation where the autothrottles were commanding more thrust when what I needed was idle thrust.




Synopsis: B757-200 Captain reported that during descent with the autopilot engaged the aircraft exceeded Vmo (maximum operating limit speed).
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Vacuum Pump
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During IFR flight talking to Approach Control; I began to experience heading/altitude control issues. By correcting for perceived incorrect heading; I lost approximately 300 FT of altitude near [an] Air Force Base where active flight operations were underway. My assigned altitude was 3;000 FT MSL. I eventually determined that my vacuum pump was working intermittently and causing false readings on the directional gyro (DG) and attitude indicator; and I engaged the standby vacuum system. Also at this point; I inadvertently turned off the avionics power switch and had to restart the GPS for the route and approach. Once the GPS was reprogrammed and the standby vacuum was engaged; the remainder of the flight went as planned.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports difficulty maintaining altitude and heading on an IFR flight plan in IMC; and discovers that the vacuum pump is working intermittently. The standby pump is engaged but during the troubleshooting process the avionics power switch is inadvertently turned off requiring a restart and programing of the GPS.