elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Falcon Tower requested a release on an EA50. The aircraft departed on the Mesa One Departure but turned northbound to join his flight plan instead of remaining on the SID and flying southwest bound. The aircraft was level at 3;000 FT and only a mile from a 4;500 FT MVA by the time I established radio communication. I climbed the aircraft to 6;000 FT but it still entered the 4;500 FT MVA while it was at 3;000 FT. I asked the pilot if it could maintain its own terrain clearance. The pilot responded affirmative so I instructed the aircraft to do that then coordinated with the adjacent sectors for a hand off. There seems to be a lot of problems with pilots understanding the Mesa One SID; maybe some education or a better description on the SID itself to help with confusion.




Synopsis: P50 Controller described a below MVA event involving a FFZ departure assigned a MESA1.MESA SID. The Controller claimed that the aircraft turned in the wrong direction; adding that pilots seem to misunderstand the published procedure.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon descent; the Flight Attendant in the forward galley called the rear galley to report an unusual odor and asked if we smelled it. We did not and when turbulence subsided; we went forward and noticed the odor. It was not easy to describe but was easily noticeably. The forward Flight Attendant's clothes also contained this odor due to her need to stay forward. After deplaning; she complained of feeling ill and requested to be removed from the remainder of the trip. Myself and the other Flight Attendant felt no effects and remained on the trip.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported a fume event in the cabin that was experienced by all flight attendants.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing my rounds of the aircraft here in ZZZ. As I drove by our pre-flighted Aircraft X; I could hear an APU running and stairs were up to the aircraft. As I walked up to the aircraft and entered; I noticed the aircraft was sealed from the pre-flight; I broke the seal and confirmed via EICAS indication that the APU was running. The pre-flight crew typically completes the pre-flight between XA-XA:30L. The aircraft was pre-flighted and sealed and left with the APU running for 2.75 hours with no one to monitor for fire events and EGT (Exhaust Gas Temperature) temps; this is a severe hazard and had there been a fire event there would have been no one to activate the fire bottle or follow proper procedures. [Recommend] following proper procedures and if no one is left in the cockpit to monitor the APU; please shut it down.


Second narrative: [I] was told that maintenance filed a report saying they found the APU running on Aircraft X after we performed a pre-flight on [date]. To the best of my recollection I completed a full shutdown checklist which includes turning off the battery switch.


Synopsis: Maintenance Supervisor and a Captain reported an aircraft was left unattended with the Auxiliary Power Unit running.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were taxiing out for takeoff on Runway 1C.  This is an unusual setup for IAD.  They normally use the east runway; 1R; for takeoff but it was closed this day.  As we were taxing out for takeoff; we started the taxi checklist.  ATC interrupted that by telling us to switch to Tower and they actually gave us the wrong one and then called us back to give us the right frequency.  After that we completed the taxi checklist.  We were the only ones out there but neither of us felt rushed.  After takeoff; we turned to a heading of 340 per Tower instructions and after contacting Potomac Dep.; they told us to proceed direct to ZEHRN but we didn't show that in the FMS - we showed HEFLN.  After giving us direct to JERES; they told us that HEFLN was used for Runway 30 departures.  I double checked the fuel page and sure enough we had Runway 30 selected.  While there was no deviation; it could have been serious if this was a true RNAV departure - they use headings off all runways at IAD.Whenever a checklist is interrupted; especially more than once as this one was by the two different ATC calls because of the wrong Tower frequency given to us; it is imperative that the checklist is restarted from the beginning; not picked up from where we left off - because you may pick up at the wrong point as we did.  Also; we must verify the runway in the FMS with the heading and the runway number as we line up on that runway.




Synopsis: Distracted during the Taxi checklist; an air carrier flight crew failed to set the proper takeoff runway in the FMC. The error was caught when ATC issued clearance to a fix that was not in the FMC.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X checked on descending to 6300 feet. I turned the aircraft heading 280 and descended them to 5200 feet. They violated the 6300 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) by 100 feet; and the 5800 foot MVA by 200 feet. My instruction to descend the aircraft to 5200 feet was too soon and resulted in a loss.We previously had a 'step down procedure' for aircraft landing from the east. This allowed us to descend into the MVA between heading 220 clockwise to 320. The first step was 5000 feet; then 4000 feet; then 3000 feet. This was a great tool that allowed us to easily descend aircraft from the east. In the area that I violated by 100 and 200 feet; we were previously authorized to descend to 5000 feet. This tool was taken away from us and it is my recommendation that we bring it back. Bring back the step down procedure for arrivals into from the east.




Synopsis: ATC TRACON Controller reported using a procedure no longer authorized which resulted in vectoring an arriving aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Aircraft: Premier 1
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was given a descent to the Minimum Vectoring Altitude of 9;000 feet which he read back correctly. I observed him starting the descent and responded to another aircraft checking onto the frequency. The other aircraft failed check on properly so I had to query the check on information; issue a heading and an altitude to descend to. The other aircraft did not read back altitude or give a complete read back so I was in the process of getting him squared away. I then noticed Aircraft X was exiting the edge of the 9;000 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude and descending through 8-something. He had obviously descended through the assigned altitude. He was already in the 7;000 foot (next) Minimum Vectoring Altitude so I issued a new altitude to maintain of 7;000 feet which he read back and complied with. [I recommend] proper staffing levels; [and a] standalone Supervisor in the TRACON. Had there been another set of eyes scanning as well this may have been avoided.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported they did not notice an aircraft descending below its assigned altitude and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aileron Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On a planned IFR training flight during my preflight I noticed a crack including 2 ribs near the trim tab; causing it to move around I would expect it to cause flutter; possibly losing the horizontal. So I reported it to the flight school owner. His response was 'I know it's been like that' then told us we needed to jump start the aircraft. At this point we called the flight and he preceded to argue about the aircraft being airworthy ended up doing the training flight in another aircraft. I am concerned about the lack of safety culture teaching primary students it's okay to fly a broken airplane. That type of mentality I feel will cause serious problems in the future.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being pressured by a flight school owner to fly an unairworthy aircraft.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ1; Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The aircraft was slowing from 250 kts. to 220 kts. approaching the ZZZZZ fix (Initial Approach Fix) for the RNAV XX approach. As the Flying Pilot; I asked the FO (First Officer) for Flaps 10 at which point he moved the flap handle from zero to ten and advised me the flaps were not moving. I asked him to bring the flap handle back to zero and try again. The FO attempted the second attempt but the flaps did not move. I advised the FO to let ATC know that we would need to break off the approach due to a flight control problem. We were given headings and I took over the radios and flew while the FO ran the Partial flaps/Jammed flaps checklist. I advised ATC that I needed the longest runway available at ZZZ1 and needed some headings and or an orbit to delay the approach until we ran the checklists and loaded the approach into the FMS and set up our navigation system. The Controller was very helpful and provided excellent air traffic control services while we accomplished the things we needed to do to set up and brief the no flap approach into Runway XYR using the ILS. The approach and landing went without incident and the aircraft was safely landed and taxied off the runway. After landing checklists were accomplished and the aircraft was taxied to FBO where we parked and deplaned our one passenger. Aircraft was shut down and the flaps were written up and Maintenance and Company were advised.




Synopsis: Gulfstream IV Captain reported trailing edge flaps failed to extend for landing and elected to divert. Aircraft landed safely.
Date: 201412
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other Training
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other Training
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight Attendants in the Recurrent Training program for 2015 are conducting an aircraft validation drill using sandblasted safety/sunglasses. This is supposed to represent a smoke filled environment; however the condition is so dark flight attendants can barely see based on the aircraft mock-up lighting. When the flight attendant goes to assess conditions they can't accurately figure out which condition is posted outside their door (flight attendants think the poster is a nighttime condition when they assess); however they open the door anyway. This training is concerning as they are not responding to opening the scenario by seeing a daytime photograph of a clear unobstructed path. They are responding based on watching a video; and not to how they were trained to evacuate an airplane. They are not responding based on seeing an unobstructed path to evacuate or none of the other aircraft exits are usable.




Synopsis: During annual recurrent training; a smoke filled cabin environment is simulated by flight attendants wearing sandblasted glasses which causes incorrect assessments of outside evacuation conditions.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter function: Observer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tonight a helicopter went over the top of one of my hangars at roughly 20 feet above the roof. I consider this very unsafe especially when there is room in all directions to enter and exit the airport safely without endangering hangars or people. This happens frequently and the pilots do not seem to care. I am worried that one of these helicopter is going to drop through my roof; destroying airplanes and possibly killing people in the hangar. I think most of the problems with helicopters at this airport could be eliminated if they had a set pattern to enter and exit the airport.




Synopsis: A ground observer reported that helicopters frequently fly very close to the hangars and may be a hazard to persons on the ground.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the First Officer and Pilot Flying on Aircraft X from ZZZ-ZZZ1. The aircraft was leaving a maintenance facility and heading back to resume normal line flying. After both the Captain and I conducted thorough preflight; we started the jet and began to taxi to Runway XX. The taxi was uneventful. The takeoff roll began at approximately XA:15 pm and yielded nothing out of the ordinary till a few knots below V1. Approaching V1 I began to smell a very pungent order and shortly after began to see a haze like smoke forming in the cockpit. I called 'reject; reject; reject' to which the Captain and I performed the Rejected Takeoff procedure. We taxied off the runway and had airport operations follow us back to the maintenance facility. The taxi back to the maintenance facility yielded no additional smoke or fumes.




Synopsis: EMB-135LR First Officer reported pungent odor and haze occurred during takeoff roll. Crew executed a rejected takeoff and return to maintenance.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff flight crew noticed heavy burning rubber odor present in flight deck. Not being able to rule out the possibility of an onboard fire; I elected to abort the takeoff. The takeoff was aborted at 95 knots. We stopped on the runway; assessed the condition of the aircraft and elected to return to the gate to have maintenance come.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reported aborting takeoff due to burning odor in the cockpit.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PSP
ATC / advisory: Tower PSP
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X had been cleared for the VOR B into PSP. When the aircraft was short final the PSP tower called and told the approach controller that Aircraft X was going to execute a 360 on final. The controller working position was very confused about what the aircraft was going to do. She had an aircraft on final behind Aircraft X that she had to maneuver to maintain spacing. I think there is a big misconception on what exactly an aircraft is allowed to do when cleared for the VOR B approach. The tower was not clear about what the aircraft was doing. The tower tried to argue with the TRACON controller over the landline. We need to develop training for the controllers who work PSP tower and approach so that they are aware what an aircraft can do on a VOR B approach so that we can provide positive separation.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported of confusion when PSP Tower advised SCT that the aircraft on final was going to do a 360. SCT had traffic following the initial aircraft and wanted the rules clarified on what the Tower and Approach can do.