elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to boarding; I turned on the APU bleed valve. Shortly afterwards; the #1 Flight Attendant informed me of a wide spread dirty sock odor reported by multiple inflight crew members. The odor recognition procedure directed me to deselect the APU bleed and complete a logbook entry. Maintenance took the aircraft out of service after the odor persisted during their initial troubleshooting.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported; while at the gate; turning on the APU bleed valve. The aircraft began to fill with the dirty sock odor. Maintenance action was required.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inflight; dispatch notified us that we had DG (Dangerous-Goods/HAZMAT) on board that was incorrectly loaded. We had received a Preliminary DG summary and a Final DG summary; after the final weights were received. Continued on to destination.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being informed mid-flight that hazardous material had been loaded improperly.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I programmed the FMS for our flight from LAX. I looked at the route and entered the LAXX6 TRM transition into the Flight Plan. I asked the captain to verify the routing and we both agreed the routing and the FMS was set up correctly. We ran the checklists and pushed back for takeoff. Shortly after the takeoff just after the handoff to SoCal Departure and roughly 1;000 FT MSL ATC told us to go directly to PEVEE. I immediately noticed that that was part of the HOLTZ 9 RNAV SID. We quickly put the HOLTZ9 into the FMS and went direct to PEVEE. We had yet to start our turn to 220 which is part of the LAXX6 and therefore had no deviation. The Controller's timing was perfect and we continued with no issues. I believe this happened because of a simple human error. On the PDC there is a ROUTE section and then another section with the [revised] clearance. This can be confusing seeing both routes next to each other. From now on I will pay better attention to the PDC and continue to verify the FMS setup with the Captain. If I have any questions I will verbally ask for clarification.




Synopsis: Both members of the flight crew of a CRJ-700 failed to note the 'revised' routing on their PDC delivered ATC clearance which included a different SID from the filed route. Quick recognition of the problem and its resolution when handed off to Departure Control prevented any meaningful track deviation.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying a repositioning leg and the first officer was on his 2nd day of IOE. The first officer was acting as pilot flying. Upon selecting landing gear down; the landing gear failed to extend; and three red gear unsafe lights illuminated. I did not hear the hydraulic pump running as usual. After a period of approximately 35-40 seconds; the two main gear indicators changed to green; the nose gear indicator remained red; and a HYDR CAWS illuminated. I directed the first officer to perform a go-around / missed approach; climb to 4;500; engage the autopilot; and continue flying the aircraft in VMC. After reaching a safe altitude; I performed the HYDR CAWS QRH procedure. The HYDR CNTL circuit breaker was pulled as per the checklist. As directed by the QRH; we referred to the 'Emergency Landing Gear Extension' checklist in the QRH. The nose gear locked into place within 30 seconds of reducing airspeed to 110 KIAS. No use of the hand pump was required. The gear was left extended. With adequate fuel; VMC conditions; and no checklist requirement to land as soon as practical or possible; we chose to divert to where there is a Pilatus service center. This was approximately 100nm away; and we flew there IFR in VMC with the gear extended. Airspeed was maintained below 177 KIAS as required by the HYDR CAWS checklist. Landing was without incident.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reports failure of the landing gear to extend when selected down during approach. QRH procedures are applied and three green lights are observed; but the crew elects to divert to an airport where maintenance is available.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Crew Scheduling reassigned me to operate [another flight] instead of deadheading. I preflighted the aircraft; briefed with my Captain and performed checklists. The line of stormy weather from the west started to move over BWI. The weather had lightning associated which in turn closed the ramp. The ramp closure delayed our departure from the gate. After a while we pushed back from the gate and were instructed to taxi to the deice pad by Runway 15R and park due to the fact that our route to [our destination] was closed. During this time my Captain and I were contacting Dispatch; Ground Control and Clearance Delivery to help find a new route to help us depart BWI as soon as possible. I calculated my duty day in my mind and thought that I was legal due to the fact that I believed I could be two hours extended due to irregular operations. I received messages from Dispatch concerning our route via ACARS. We received our new clearance and taxied to 33L. I sent messages to Dispatch concerning our fuel status and received amendments to our Dispatch Release for fuel planning. We departed 33L at BWI about an hour and 20 minutes after we pushed. We arrived [at our destination]; parked at the gate and shutdown the aircraft. I looked at my Crew board and reviewed my flight time and duty times and realized that the calculations I made for my flight duty times in my head were completely wrong. I thought the latest wheels up time was extendable for two hours due to irregular operations. I was totally wrong. I found the FAR 117 Chart on Flight Duty Times and was horrified that I exceeded my max duty time. I was never contacted by Crew Scheduling via ACARS or cell message during my time on the aircraft. I have learned the hard way to be extremely mindful of my flight duty limits and triple-check the charted limits against my scheduled flying.I should have called Crew Scheduling to help with any confusion over Flight Duty Limits. I got distracted with coordinating ATC reroutes and inclement weather. I should always compare the FAR 117 Chart to my scheduled flying and understand how to calculate it and understand how to apply the correct extension if needed.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported unknowingly exceeding FAR 117 maximum duty day limits.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Short final encountered wake turbulence. Performed go around. Landed safely on second attempt.

Callback: Reporter stated incident occurred at PHL; in trail of an A321; about 50 feet AGL.



Synopsis: E145 Captain reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence on short final.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent into ZZZ; extended speed brakes and experienced a strong uncommanded roll to the right. Retracted the speed brakes and aircraft rolled even stronger to the left; nosed down; and overspeed clacker sounded momentarily. [We notified ATC] since this was a flight control issue and uncertainty existed as to how the aircraft would respond after landing with auto spoiler activation. Aircraft continued descent and approach without further use of speed brakes and no further controllability issues occurred. Visual approach and landing were performed without incident. Spoilers were used for landing and controllability was not an issue during landing rollout. This is the fourth write-up of this issue in a few days. This is the second such write-up from this crew. The same event occurred to us on descent...yesterday. This was a reposition flight...following a spoiler panel removal and replacement.


Second narrative: [On the previous flight] we...had an uncommanded 10-degree roll to the right when speed brakes applied during descent. Upon stowing speed brakes; the aircraft rolled left further than 10 degrees with the autopilot. Aircraft was written up twice prior and supposedly fixed. We wrote up this issue. The Number 3 spoiler was removed and replaced... We took off uneventfully and had no issues until descent. This time the roll seemed more exacerbated than before and when stowing the spoilers; the aircraft rolled rapidly left.


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported uncommanded roll with autopilot engaged during descent when spoilers/speedbrakes were extended and retracted.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wet Runway Surface; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While landing my left tire deflated causing loss of directional control leading to an exit of the runway with no damage to aircraft or passengers. It had been raining prior to our arrival leaving patchy wet spots on the runway. The runway appeared mostly dry with a slight sheen to it. The Landing Weight was approximately 5450 pounds (max landing weight for this aircraft is 5;600 LBS) Runway length is 5;000 feet this would give me a V-ref speed of 93 KTS with a stopping distance of 2;877 feet. I landed as close to the threshold and on Vref as I could to allow full length of the runway.After firmly on the runway and applying brakes I felt a slight slip on the left side for just a second. I then noticed that the aircraft felt like it was drifting to the left; assuming it was a crosswind I applied rudder and ailerons to compensate; I then realized that the indications were of a flat tire on the left side. I continue breaking with the right tire trying not to hydroplane it and slow the aircraft. As the aircraft got slower I started losing rudder effectiveness and control. When it was obvious that the aircraft was going to depart the runway I continued with full right rudder and applied max brakes on the right side trying not to let it cartwheel. The aircraft came to a stop approximately 1;000 feet after leaving the runway in a fairly straight path on the wet grass. I shut down the engines and aircraft. After walking around and assessing the damage the only visible damage I could see was the deflated left tire and mud coverage. This eclipse jet is a 500 model with most of the current upgrades. The only upgrade that it does not have is anti-skid brakes. Not knowing if there were any structural defects in the tire that had this aircraft been equipped with antiskid would have probably made the difference in this situation. This is something that I can only speculate and I am very happy there was no major damage and no one was injured.




Synopsis: EA50 Captain reported loss of control on landing due to a flat tire on left main resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On [Date]; we were scheduled to fly [Aircraft X] out of ZZZZ to ZZZZ1 at XA:00 local time. While en cruise; my Captain noticed the rudder pedals on the pilot side didn't mobilize as they should when pressed on. My Captain requested for me to step on the rudder pedals to see if I could notice any anomalies with the brakes on the Pilot Monitoring side. I did not notice anything unusual about the rudder pedals. We then proceeded to set up for the approach at ZZZZ1. We did a approach and landed on the runway and on the rollout I noticed that we were not slowing down like we should; the plane seemed to stutter (as if the brakes were engaging and then disengaging) The Captain then performed a go around. After the go around we both agree that we are in a position to safely try again. This time we come in a little bit slower and once again on the roll out my Captain was pressing the brakes and we were not decelerating as normal. After the second go around we both agree our best option is to divert to ZZZZ2 where there is a significantly longer runway. We land at ZZZZ2 without incident and deplane the passengers.




Synopsis: First Officer reported degraded braking action and two rejected landings forced a diversion to a successful precautionary landing.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Took hand off on a C680 descending from FL290 to FL250. A G200 checked on; I answered to the C680 and descended the C680 to FL240. The G200 took clearance. Then the C680 checked on descending to FL250. I again descended the C680 to FL240 and thought this was strange. Immediately the C680 said he thought the G200 took his clearance. Then the G200 said he thought he took a wrong clearance and was descending. I told him I didn't know where he was but he needed to be at his assigned altitude. I brought his Data Block up. He was in R68 airspace climbing from FL305 back to FL310. I tried to call him and tell him again to climb and maintain FL310; but he had switched back to R68. I called R68 to tell him what was happening and the pilot was checking back in telling the controller he was level and took someone else's clearance. The military using the whole state of Florida as their bombing range and ZJX and the south area having to route aircraft around or under the airspace; ORCA and COMP 2X procedures are still dangerous. The Navy is not returning the airspace and we have restrictions all day long that inconvenience the flying public and cost the airlines money. We are constantly pushing aircraft down early; descending and climbing betting on a good outcome. Hoping the aircraft doesn't hit an ALTRV. The casual factor is the airspace hot all day long; the ALTRV taking up the whole east side of Florida. The military not returning airspace when it has been negotiated. Management not forcing the Navy to return an ALTRV; the pilot's not listening and I missing the read back as a different aircraft. Send the military bombing range out over the water in the warning area. Safer and the flying public would not be so inconvenienced and the airlines would save money.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller voiced concern regarding the extensive amount of airspace used by the Navy; the fact that restricted airspace is rarely returned to the FAA during non use periods; the ATC workload increase and delays encountered.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a second flight of the night shift; and was unusually busy; because the hospital we are associated with is understaffed because of COVID. We got the call to go to ZZZ; and the weather was marginal; but good enough to get in. We accepted the trip; and flew the RNAV approach to Runway XX. Later; I looked at the approach chart; and it said that the approach was not authorized at night. I think that being busy after a long period of hardly flying contributed to the error; and also that it was XA:00 in the morning. Also; due to COVID-induced rules; we had to wear masks flying; and it fogs up my glasses; making it harder to see. I need to make sure that I check all the notes on an approach before accepting a trip.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported flying an RNAV Approach which was not authorized at night.