elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Apparent flight control malfunction (aileron deflection) after autopilot disconnected at approximately 1500' AGL. Controllable to landing. Log entry made; consulted with Maintenance Technician in detail showing him a picture of the right aileron deflection at arrival gate. Technician was able to duplicate the discrepancy. We both agreed that the aircraft should be taken out of service until the matter was fully investigated. Later; I learned from Maintenance Technician's that there was a flight control malfunction due to a flashlight found in a panel that interfered with the aileron movement. The flashlight appeared to have been severed.  Additionally; I learned that two similar Log entries were made previously indicating the same discrepancy. Apparently a flashlight was left in a panel.




Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported an aileron deflection when the autopilot was turned off during approach. Maintenance discovered a flashlight in an access panel that was interfering with the aileron controls.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BHM.Airport, AL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BHM
ATC / advisory: TRACON BHM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Approach; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were being vectored for a visual approach to BHM Runway 6 from the southeast. We had briefed the visual approach and also made reference to a safety alert for the Runway 6 obstacle threat. This threat is a 2;049 feet MSL Tower just southeast of MCDEN; the FAF for the ILS Runway 6. ATC cleared us direct MCDEN and down to 3;000 feet. This clearance would have put our flight path directly over the obstacle. One would need to cross the tower at least at 3;000 feet; which is a setup for a high approach. Secondly; a crew; who perhaps did not notice the Safety Alert Page would likely get cleared for the visual; descend further and get an EGPWS warning. I realize that this is not intentional on the part of ATC; but by clearing aircraft from the south directly to MCDEN; they are setting crews up for a potential problem; particularly if a crew is busy and/or task saturated. We told ATC about the issue with the routing over the tower and requested direct CEMPO instead. They issued the revised clearance and subsequently cleared us for the visual approach to Runway 6. I believe that ATC should change their policy of clearing aircraft direct to MCDEN; instead clearing them to CEMPO to avoid this hazardous obstacle issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a vector to final for a visual approach to BHM from ATC that created a conflict with a published ground obstacle.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Crew was approaching the Sky Harbor Airport on the EAGUL 6 Arrival. Just passing DERVL descending though approximately 5300 ft.; Approach Control gave the crew position of the field and inquired whether we had the airfield visually. We told the Approach Controller that we had the field in sight and he cleared us for the visual for Runway 26. Although the clearance did not include a heading to join the final approach course; both crew members agreed that we were; in fact; cleared the visual approach. The Pilot switched the automation to Heading mode and turned to a heading of 230 to join the final approach course to Runway 26.The Controller then asked where we were headed; and we told him that we were on a heading to fly the visual to 26. He then said that we were not cleared the visual and gave a more southerly heading to intercept the final approach course and to maintain 5000 ft. We leveled off at 5000 ft. and complied with the new clearance. The flight concluded uneventfully with a landing on Runway 26 and taxi to the gate.The Controller's phraseology was confusing. Both crew members were in agreement that the clearance was given to fly the visual to Runway 26. Although the phraseology seemed a bit inconsistent with Phoenix Controllers; the flight crew should have confirmed the clearance.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a heading deviation due to confusion and communication breakdown with ATC.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFF.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: SVFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi to Runway 22R; via D-B-A; cross Runway 22L. We reviewed current taxiway diagram and decided to hold in the run-up pad between the two parallel runways. We sped up our taxi across the runway; and crossed Runway 22L.  Once we reached the opposite side of Runway 22L; we realized that the hold short line for Runway 22R had been repositioned from the edge of the run up pad to its middle cutting the run-up pad in half. We realized this as we taxied past the hold short line. I immediately took the controls and made a U-turn to return to the proper side of the hold short line. Due to the reduced visibility; unfamiliarity with the changes in the airport's surface markings; and close proximity of the repositioned hold short line to the parallel runway immediately past the hold short line for the parallel runway; we crossed over the line thinking initially that it was the clear of the runway we just crossed; but instead; it was the hold short line for the runway that we needed to hold short. Hot spot on airport diagram. Hold short lines that are equal in spacing from the two parallel runways and also the same length across the taxiway.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the hold short line was changed at SFF airport and it is not indicated on the chart.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out; as flying pilot I went to adjust the rudder trim. While manipulating the rudder trim switch the switch broke causing the trim to deflect much more than intended.I managed to reduce the input trim slightly before the switch stopped working entirely. There was still excessive right rudder trim in place requiring constant left rudder to compensate.I informed the Captain of issue; attempted to trouble shoot. Captain then called dispatch/maintenance and they eventually decided to divert us for an aircraft swap. Landed; deplaned; accepted new plane reboarded and continued flight.




Synopsis: The DHC-8 First Officer was trimming the rudder when the switch broke; necessitating a diversion to a nearby airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On visual approach to runway 27 SAN; after passing the final approach fix REEBO; at 1200 feet MSL; we experienced a near miss with a drone. The drone passed less than 100 feet below the airplane; just right of the nose centerline. No evasive action taken as time did not permit. It happened extremely fast. We reported the event to tower immediately. I reported the event to dispatch after gate arrival via phone. Also; the SAN Tower Controller called me to discuss the details needed for her report. She informed me that since our initial radio report did not include the statement 'near miss'; that she would not be filing a near miss report. I informed her that the dispatcher and I were filing near miss reports.




Synopsis: Airbus Captain reported a near miss with a UAV while on final approach to SAN.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was pilot monitoring during a KRANN 3 arrival into Boston. The aircraft was operating in the FMS mode; managed altitude and airspeed; with Number 2 autopilot selected. Prior to commencing descent from cruise altitude; the First Officer and I had completed a thorough verification of the planned descent profile on the KRANN 3 arrival with no discrepancies noted on ND or MCDU. The first constraint was to cross KRANN at 11;000 FT and 270 KIAS; which was confirmed. However; prior to reaching KRANN; the pilot flying noticed that the aircraft was descending below 11;000 FT. He disconnected the autopilot and initiated an immediate climb at approximately 10;300 FT. The automation was reset at 11;000 FT and the arrival continued. I did not notify ATC of the deviation; nor were we advised by them of any altitude deviation or traffic conflict. At that point; the First Officer and I tried to assess exactly why the aircraft had descended below the previously set and confirmed altitude restriction; but could not determine any procedural error or equipment malfunction.  The aircraft was programmed properly to fly the KRANN 3 arrival in the FMS mode and was verified to do so. I did not notice any impending indication on the ND or PDF that the aircraft would not level off at 11;000 FT as planned. However; I did not closely monitor the expected level off as the aircraft actually reached 11;000 FT. As a result; an altitude deviation of about 700 FT occurred before corrective action was taken by the pilot flying. In the future; I will monitor all automated altitude level off's closely to ensure that the aircraft does; in fact; level off at the planned and programmed altitude.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports descending below 11;000 FT prior to KRANN on the KRANN 3 arrival to BOS.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During powerup for takeoff we noticed a strong odor in the cockpit. Because we hadn't noticed it earlier; it seemed that it could be coming from another aircraft or externally. After takeoff it was apparent it was coming from our aircraft; but dissipated during climbout so we decided to continue. During the descent below 23;000 feet; the odor was apparent again but not as strong. The engines were at idle. We were close to ZZZ at this point so we reviewed the fumes in the cockpit checklist and discussed donning the O2 mask and advising ATC should the situation become worse. Below 17;000 feet we started the APU and used the bleed.  It helped for a few minutes but the odor returned. The flight attendants also smelled the odor in the cabin. The Gate Agent immediately mentioned the odor as she opened the door. The engine oil was serviced in ZZZZ and the engines were washed.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a strong odor on takeoff which initially dissipated during climbout and returned during descent at destination.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: WYS.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G WYS
ATC / advisory: CTAF WYS
Second aircraft: Robinson R44
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After start up; my instructor and I began taxiing towards Runway 1 for departure. My instructor announced our position on CTAF as we taxied. Following a run-up; we taxied to hold short of Runway 1 and check for traffic. No traffic was seen. We took the runway to takeoff with my instructor making the appropriate CTAF announcements. There was still no traffic in sight and CTAF was quiet. We added full power and began our takeoff roll. As we neared rotation speed; an R44 helicopter came into view air taxiing over the field from the west heading across the runway towards its parking area on the east side of the field. At this time we were just above rotation speed; but with the helicopter in front of us at 50 ft AGL above the runway I elected to reject the takeoff. We turned off from the runway and taxied back to takeoff again after the helicopter had landed; announcing our position and intentions at all times on CTAF. No calls from the helicopter were heard. The helicopter was seen quickly offloading its passengers after landing. We then took off a second time and departed without issue.We didn't spot it earlier as it came in low over the trees surrounding the field and air-taxied across the runway (around 50 AGL) towards its parking area. We made regular announcements on CTAF and heard nothing from the helicopter.As a helicopter pilot myself; this guy broke a few points of helicopter etiquette. We're told to avoid the flow of fixed-wing traffic so non-standard approaches are acceptable; but make sure everyone in the area knows about the route you're flying. This pilot was not talking on CTAF or; considering he crossed the runway as we were taking off; even monitoring it.As always with non-towered airports; be vigilant of aircraft that are not communicating on CTAF and especially ones that are not flying standard approaches or departures.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC with a helicopter that did not report position on CTAF.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X called on satcom at XA:09z located about XXXSM SE of ZZZ with a hydraulic 3 low and hydraulic 3 off issue.  Flight requested priority handling and landed without issue on runway XXC and exited left.


Second narrative: Cruise at FL380.  Received a Level 1 #3 Hydraulic Elev annunciation.  Looked up in QRH and it stated that the 3-2 NRMP would not work; and there were no other steps to take.  Upon verification of the Hydraulic Synoptic; the Captain and I noticed Hyd Reservoir #3 was lower than the others; and dropping.  At that time; it indicated 4.5 gallons.  #1 was 5.9 gal; #2 was 5.7 gal.  Within 5 min; the #3 reservoir was below 4 gal.  We believed we had a hydraulic leak; although there was no annunciation.  We referenced the QRH and selected Hyd - Manual; and turned off the pumps in #3.  At that point; quantity had dropped to 0.1 gal.  Within 2 minutes; the quantity displayed 12.0 gal.  We [requested priority handling] with ZZZ Center; in anticipation of receiving a Hyd #3 Fail annunciation.  We received vectors direct to ZZZ1; and started our descent.  At approx 5;000 ft; in VMC conditions; we turned on the #3 pumps; and were able to get the aircraft fully configured without issue.  We did receive the Hyd 3 Fail annunciation. The CA made a Flaps 35 landing on Runway XXC.  We were able to taxi clear and taxi to our ramp entry spot where we shut down the engines and were towed in. Maintenance did not have a guess on what caused the loss of fluid in Hyd #3 system.


Synopsis: First Officer reported loss of #3 hydraulic system fluid and continued to destination airport. They required a tow to the gate due to loss of nose wheel steering associated with the loss of #3 system.
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain; in his briefing; stated he would not wear a mask in the cockpit (whether a Flight Attendant was present or not) and would probably forget to wear one when he came into the cabin. When I (#2 Flight Attendant) questioned this and stated we did not have to enter the cockpit if the pilots refused to wear a mask----he said he would issue a directive and we would comply.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the Captain advised the crew that he would not be wearing a mask in the cockpit.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ Ops Agent notified Captain of HAZMAT for our leg from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Operations Agent brought NOTOC paperwork for the Captain to review. Captain inquired as to whether he was supposed to take paperwork to accompany HAZMAT; Ops Agent responded that she needed to retain the paperwork. Upon landing in ZZZ; the person receiving the HAZMAT inquired as to where the paperwork was. We realized that we should've retained the paperwork to give to the receiving Agent.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported Hazmat cargo transported to destination without required NOTOC document.