elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TIST.Airport, VI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower TIST
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff in vfr condition we experienced a terrain warning due to a map shift on the nav system. There was no visual conflict with the terrain and normal takeoff was continued. No rnav departure was planned or executed.




Synopsis: B757-200 Captain reported receiving a terrain warning after takeoff in TIST that was due to a map shift. No terrain conflict occurred.
Date: 201506
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Entering downwind I smelled smoke. It was an unusual smell of smoke. So I notified the captain. He said he smelled it too. Not sure of what it was; we decided to treat it as an inflight fire and descended quickly and landed as soon as it was practicable. After landing we unloaded all the passengers on board as quick as possible. We were able to see there was smoke coming out of the engine cowling. Once the passengers were sent to a safe place we opened the engine cowling. The AC compressor was on fire. My captain immediately extinguished the fire with a fire extinguisher. No one was injured during this incident. Few hours later the aircraft was secured. We acted quickly even though we were unsure of where the smoke was coming from. Corrective action would be to continue to act quickly based on what we have been trained to do. And do it quickly in without wasting any time.




Synopsis: C208 First Officer reported noticing smell of smoke so the aircraft was landed as soon as practicable. After landing the air conditioning compressor was found to be the source of the smoke.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We experienced an unwanted fuel transfer (center to wing tank) on B737. [A maintenance report] entry was completed. We started with 8.65 in the left tank; 5.24 in the center and 8.60 in the right tank. As we taxied for takeoff; the center tank burned normally; the right tank remained at 8.60 and the left tank had increased to 8.70. During the climb; the left tank continued to climb to 8.79 and then stopped; the right tank remained at 8.60 and the center tank was draining at a rate that exceeded our two-engine fuel burn. We determined unwanted fuel transfer was occurring from the center tank to the left tank and the left tank had exceeded capacity; which led to venting of fuel overboard through the fuel vent system. This anomaly of unwanted fuel transfer from the center to the wing tank is insidious and mostly unrecognizable. The first procedural recognition by the flight crew would be the realization of less than flight plan fuel quantity at the top of climb during the cruise check. By that time; the center tank is near completion of its burn and the fuel loss would have been complete. On an individual flight; the loss of 1;000-1;500 pounds of fuel could cause a flight to land below the alternate or reserve fuel; even possibly cause a diversion or return. However; the overlying issue is the long-term loss (or venting) of fuel for the duration of this problem. With this aircraft averaging five flights per day; I calculate the loss to equate to 52;500 pounds per week or 230;000 pounds per month. If this is occurring with merely 20 aircraft in the fleet; we are venting 7.9 million gallons of fuel insidiously overboard annually increasing the fleet operation cost roughly $40 million per year. The recommended corrective action is to add a QRH checklist for 'Main tank fuel quantity increase with center tank fuel.' The steps would include turning off the associated center tank pump to maintain wing tank fuel balance. The most appropriate time to check for an increase in main tank fuel is passing 10;000 feet during the climb phase of flight. The crew should also make an associated [maintenance] write-up for unwanted fuel transfer from the center to the wing tank.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported experiencing unwanted fuel transfer from the center tank to the wing tanks; resulting in fuel being vented overboard.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was in cruise flight at FL240; nav data was set up for the FILPZ3 arrival [to] CLT. Auto pilot was ON. Experienced wake turbulence two times; back to back. The first wake turbulence onset; aircraft quickly banked right 30 degrees; loss of altitude of 100 feet. Crew recovered; approximately 45 seconds later the second wake turbulence onset occurred. Again; crew recovered and reported event while asking Memphis Center for heading change due to wake turbulence. Memphis Center issued 15 degrees left of course. Flight crew inquired as to type of traffic ahead. Crew referenced TCAS and identified traffic 12.5 miles ahead; twelve o'clock position. Memphis Center responded and stated traffic was an A320 that had descended through our altitude; 12 miles ahead. We concurred with info. Memphis Center apologized and a few miles later; gave us direct to next fix. Flight crew noticed A320 maintained constant descent on arrival and was approximately 1;500 to 2;000 feet below our altitude for remainder of arrival. Rest of flight uneventful.Flight crew would suggest ATC to advise of A320's position 12 miles ahead of our position and A320 had descended through our present altitude 'caution; wake turbulence'. At FL240; flight crew's work load was relatively low which allowed for immediate recovery without any distractions. Purpose for this [report] is to try and help both flight crews and ATC with wake turbulence awareness via proper communication. ATC was very professional and apologized. Crew was well trained. All is good. Hope this helps in an effort for future wake turbulence avoidance.




Synopsis: CE-750 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence while in cruise at FL240 12 miles in trail of an A320.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: UAO.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G UAO
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A C172 was in a published holding pattern at the UBG VOR. A C414 was a departure from UAO airport; approximately 8 miles east of the UBG VOR. Limited departure routes from UAO; most being routed over UBG. Normally; with a good performing airplane; you are able to establish RADAR contact around 2;000 from UAO (the Newberg Sector is both RADAR and non-RADAR; given the location of our single RADAR sensor); but did not see the C414 until approximately 5 miles west of UAO. [I] turned the C414 immediately to avoid the C172. Thought I had cleared the traffic; but TARP thought otherwise. I believe it happened due to our poor RADAR coverage; and poor climb performance of the C414. There are things I could have done also; such as climb the C414 to 3;000. The problem with that however; would be the fact that I would possibly never see C414 on RADAR; because our coverage gets much worse the farther you venture west. Simple answer is: We need another RADAR installation to cover the entire southwest quadrant of our airspace. This airspace contains 80 percent of our student pilot; instrument training airports. There have been several issues over the years with this airspace; and lack of RADAR coverage.




Synopsis: P80 Controller described a loss of separation event between an aircraft holding at UGB VOR and an IFR UAO departure.  The reporter suggested improved RADAR coverage is a must in this area.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV; Tower ASE
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Suspected severe turbulence encounter during enroute decent and final approach into Aspen Colorado. Several moments of momentary loss of aircraft control mainly in the bank attitude. Did not get excessive bank attitude aural warning at any time.




Synopsis: EMB-505 Captain reported severe turbulence during approach resulting in momentary loss of aircraft control.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise; observed Engine 2 reverser fault ECAM. Consulted the QRH and determined it was an unpressurized fault and that no further action was required and that it was ok to continue normal operations to our destination. Contacted Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] in a three way conference call to confirm and consult them. [Maintenance Control] was able to observe real-time data and confirm that this was not a pressurized fault. Later in flight; received an ACARS message from Dispatch that ATC had been advised. I again contacted Dispatch via voice to confirm that an emergency was not warranted nor had been declared. Dispatch confirmed this. On initial contact with Approach Control; they wanted confirmation that we had an issue that might require the full length of the runway. In a later ATC call; we were advised that ATC [was giving us priority handling] as a precaution in order to provide us 10 mile separation on approach. Landing was uneventful. Used only idle reverse. Advised ATC that further assistance was not required. Taxied in to gate normally.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported an engine reverser anomaly during cruise.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During descent into ZZZ; ATC directed us to hold for unforecast weather overhead the airfield. We slowed to green dot to conserve fuel. Scheduled on deck fuel was 11.3 and we were getting close to that limit without the hold so we sent message to Dispatch via ACARS for options and fuel numbers.  No reply was received. Just prior to reaching holding; ATC informed us the field was now open and landing in the opposite direction from original flight plan which made fuel even more critical. During vectors to new  arrival; we were given new holding instructions and advised the airport was not accepting traffic and was unsure of when it would be open again. At this point; we called up the nearest airports on the FMS and saw ZZZ1 was the closest. After checking the weather for ZZZ1 (reported as VMC) while in holding; we elected to proceed to the divert prior to completing one turn in holding. Landed in ZZZ1 with 7.2. Visual approach and landing to runway 29 was uneventful. During divert to ZZZ1; 3 diversion reports were sent through ACARS and no reply from Dispatch was ever received. During initial descent into ZZZ; there was not enough time/fuel to contact Dispatch via Radio.Cause - Unforecast weather combined with minimum FOD planning left us with few options when faced with  unexpected holding.Suggestions - 3000 extra pounds of gas would have allowed us to hold longer and given us more options.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported diverting due to unforecast weather combined with inadequate fuel on board.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I agreed to pick up a maintenance flight; the aircraft's aileron cables had been replaced very recently. I performed the preflight inspection using the checklist; paying particular attention to the ailerons; etc. However; I did not closely inspect the brake pads on the main wheel disc brake system. The flight was uneventful; and the ailerons worked properly. However; during landing; on rollout; I detected a soft abrasive noise from the right brake. The braking action was ok; but the noise got my attention; it was not loud; but noticeable. After parking the aircraft; I postflighted the aircraft and discovered on close inspection that one of the brake pads had been installed backwards; which resulted in moderate braking action but also the soft grinding noise as well. And instantly I realized I had flown an unairworthy aircraft. If I had been really careful to inspect the brakes closely; I would not have flown the aircraft. I guess you could call it failure to perform the preflight checklist properly; additionally attention to detail was inadequate.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Piper PA28 reported discovering that a brake pad was installed backward during the post flight walk-around.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SRQ.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SRQ
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] was cleared to Taxiway Alpha to Runway 32 intersection Delta. There is no such intersection on my AFD diagram or on the runway signage. [I] called for clarification during taxi. Controller repeated clearance. While I was trying to find the intersection on my little diagram; I inadvertently crossed the intersecting runway hold line. [I] proceeded across the runway; stopped when clear; and reported to Controller 'I'm confused'. [I] was given revised clearance to Alpha Seven intersection; which sign was in front of me. [I] took off without incident. A contributing factor was partial panel operation. The PFD was not working properly; and I was navigating and flying from the same alternate MFD on the co-pilot side. About 1/2 way through my flight; an hour and a half later; I figured out that the Controller had meant the Taxiway Delta intersection with Runway 32; which is an intersection takeoff clearance that I never had before.




Synopsis: A pilot using a SRQ AFD Airport diagram was unable to identify his hold short clearance point at the Taxiway D intersection with Runway 14/32 and consequently crossed Runway 4/22.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger came back to aft galley and violated [COVID-19] social distancing to ask for another beer. Discontinue all onboard service and adopt policies to prevent passengers from placing flight attendants at risk of getting ill.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger violated COVID-19 social distancing rules when approaching the galley mid-flight to ask for a beverage.