elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After a normal engine shut down I was notified by Ramp Agent that smoke started coming out of the top of the Number2 Engine and the propeller was spinning. The condition levers for both engines were in fuel OFF and the batteries were OFF. My First Officer proceeded to turn off ground power to the aircraft and the propeller stopped and the smoke started to lessen immediately. All passengers were off the aircraft during this time. Airport police met the aircraft and they called airport fire to make sure the fire/smoke was under control. It smelled like an electrical fire and was coming from the right side of the Number 2 engine. Dispatch and Maintenance Control were notified.




Synopsis: After shut down with Condition Levers and Batteries OFF; a DHC-8-300 Number 2 Engine continued turning and began smoking so all electrical power was removed which stopped the engine. Fire fighters were called to inspect the electrical odor.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAF.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAF
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing to Runway 23 on Taxiway E; I noticed a small white object floating approximately 1-2 miles north/northeast of the airport at approximately 2;000 AGL. It was moving very slowly; approximately 15 knots on about a 130-degree track. It appeared to be a few feet in diameter with an elliptical shape.I queried the tower controller to ask if the facility was aware of what the object was. The controller was unaware of the object's presence. Upon further investigation; the controller informed me that it appeared to be a balloon with some sort of device tethered and freely swinging from the bottom of the balloon.This was consistent with my observation. A bright light or perhaps the sun's reflection would illuminate off of the metallic object at the bottom of the balloon. I have seen this object once before about 4 months ago on the final approach course to Runway 10 at this airport. The controller in that situation was also unaware of what it was.




Synopsis: A C172 pilot reports sighting an object in the sky while taxiing to Runway 23 at LAF. The Tower is also able to see the object which appears to be a balloon with a metallic object swinging below. The Tower Controller was initially unaware of the object and it appeared to be in the Class D airspace.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJU.Airport, PR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center TJZS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed SJU with a WATERS routing from dispatch. In the climb discovered aircraft was Limited Extended Overwater (162 miles); rerouted aircraft to comply with 162 [mile] rule. Dispatch filed incorrect route and [this was] not discovered at gate. Change software to not allow route to aircraft.


Second narrative: I received a message right after takeoff from the crew stating I had them filed beyond 162nm. I immediately sent them a routing I wanted them to fly which would keep them within 162nm enroute.


Synopsis: An Airbus Captain and Company Dispatcher reported the aircraft was initially filed on a route that would have taken them beyond the certificated 162-mile limit.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
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: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X; was on a base for the ILS Runway 12 at BZN. There were 4 other aircraft being vectored for the ILS at the time. The BZN sector utilizes three radar feeds (QSI; BZN; QVA) and is FUSED. An error message appeared in the STARS status area that both QSI and BZN radars had failed. In addition; all of the frequencies for the sector failed as well. There is NO 121.5/243.0 available at this sector. As soon as I realized what had happened; I broadcast on the emergency backup frequency for 118.97 and issued Aircraft X a vector to join the localizer even though I had lost radar on the target. The terrain rises north and east of the localizer and the MVA is 8300. Aircraft X was at 7600. I attempted several times to relay through other aircraft but all the frequencies had failed. I called BZN ATCT and the controller stated that Aircraft X was on their frequency and was 30 seconds from joining the localizer. I asked BZN for a position from Aircraft X and the tower stated 4 miles from MANNI and established on the localizer. I then cleared the aircraft for the ILS Runway 12 approach.There was a known issue throughout the building with no internet for reports; no way to obtain NOTAMS or no indication that this issue may affect the radar feed at this sector. If known; I could have assigned non radar separation to all of the arrivals to ensure a loss of radar would have little effect except efficiency.




Synopsis: Boise TRACON Controller reported losing radio and radar contact on an aircraft inbound to an airport in mountainous terrain.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was at the supervisor desk when TMU advised the Atlantic routes were closed. They said we had Aircraft X flashing to R2 and asked if we could route the aircraft inland. I walked to R64 to pass on the information; but the aircraft was less than 10 miles from the boundary and the R64 controller was on the line calling for a handoff. R64 advised R2 said radar contact.I walked over to the Atlantic area to see if there was any confusion. The CIC inquired why we kept the aircraft coming. I said sector 2 said radar contact. The CIC advised R2 said 'Not radar contact.' I listened to the tapes to confirm and R2 said 'Not radar contact.' 'Not radar contact' is improper phraseology and confused the R64 controller who heard 'radar contact.'This was a breakdown in communication due to improper phraseology. 'Unable' or another alternative should have been stated. I would recommend phraseology review to the R2 controller.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was heading NE from RSW towards TRV to join AR18. Aircraft X was flashing at our sector just as we heard the Atlantic Routes were closed.  We asked the CIC at the time if we were to re-route the flight or if the previous sector would.  A TMU supervisor came by and advised us not to take the handoff and that the previous sector would do the re-route. The data block continued to flash at our sector and the sector flashing it to us (Sector 65) called my R-side for a handoff anyways.My R-side said that the flight 'Was not radar contact and to reroute them over CRG'.  This was not correct phraseology which led to that sector (65) calling me on the D-side and advising me that my R-side had already called the flight radar contact and that I needed to accept that handoff from them.Better communication between TMU and the re-routing sectors.  Proper phraseology would have made it clear to the previous sector that we were not taking the handoff as we were instructed.


Synopsis: ZMA controllers report of one controller using incorrect phraseology and this lead to an airspace violation. Controller used term; 'Not radar contact.' Controller heard radar contact and transferred communications to adjacent sector.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other After Departure
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: July 2013; Technician Y called the Shop office prior to midnight informing me that the Aircraft X; a B737-700 aircraft on Spot X needed a # 2 tire and a # 2 brake and that he will need assistance in doing the job. As soon as I finished working at my [Lead] desk; I got a truck and started gathering tools and equipment to do this tire and brake [change] on Aircraft X. I gone in [to Stores/Parts] loading the aircraft brake into the truck (at the time I thought it was a 737-700 brake instead it was a 737-800/900 brake) and under the impression I loaded the correct brake onto the truck. I went to the aircraft to help Technician Y to install a new tire and brake. At the aircraft we installed the tire and brake.I helped Technician Y in putting the paperwork for the tire and brake into the [Maintenance/Parts] computer. The computer came up with a 'Force part change' for the brake; I continued with the 'Force part change'; thinking that the Serial Number (S/N) on the removed brake was in error; (S/N on the removed brake was hard to read). When I came into work and found out what had happened; I looked into the # 2 brake on Aircraft X and it was changed at another station.


Second narrative: While performing Service Check on Aircraft X; found # 2 brake and tire worn past limits. I informed Lead Mechanic prior to midnight [and] went to get parts and equipment. When going to get brake found the Lead Mechanic already doing so. I continued on to get tire and tooling. I returned to aircraft with tooling and tire; found the Lead currently working on aircraft; at that point performed tire and brake change with the Lead. [When the error was realized we] confirmed that Maintenance Control was informed and that corrective action took place at the next station.


Synopsis: A Lead Mechanic and another Mechanic report they inadvertently installed a B737-800/900 Brake Assembly on a B737-700 aircraft. Lead Mechanic had overrode the Maintenance /Parts computer by 'forcing' computer system to accept the incorrect brake Part Number (P/N) and Serial Number (S/N) installation.
Date: 202008
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The passenger occupying seat X3; throughout boarding; taxi; takeoff; most of the flight; as well as descent; final descent; landing and taxi in; was not wearing a mask.  I asked him numerous times to put on his mask.  He avoided complying by having a bag of apples slices next to him and every few minutes or two putting one into his mouth and slowly chewing it.  So technically; he was eating; as well as occasionally coughing; throughout the majority of the flight.  After making one final plea; telling him that he was making me very uncomfortable and to please put on his mask; and his insistence that he was eating; I opted to occupy the middle seat; in row X; (seat 4) for landing; as to not have to sit within 6 feet of this passenger who was very obviously using loopholes to not comply with airlines mask policy.  I informed the A Flight Attendant prior to being seated for landing that I would not be sitting in my assigned seat; and as we were on final descent when I made this decision; it was too late contact the flight deck to request an Ops Supervisor to meet the aircraft.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was not complying with the face mask policy.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MRY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MRY
ATC / advisory: Tower MRY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While conducting a day time Visual Approach into the airport at approximately 3500 feet I received a terrain EGPWS warning. We had briefed the prior warnings on the airport company page and there appeared to be ample clearance between the rising terrain and our altitude. The visual glide path indicator on the PFD was showing us above the glide path which I verified with the radar altimeter. I leveled the aircraft and the warning extinguished. The tower called at the same time and asked if we could see the terrain for he had a low attitude alert. We said we did and no further incident occurred. Descending below published step downs causing low altitude warnings even though in visual conditions. Follow published step downs to avoid low altitude warnings.




Synopsis: Medium Transport Captain reported receiving a Ground Proximity warning and ATC low altitude alert while conducting a Visual Approach.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
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 System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight we received an ECAM warning of Hydraulic Res Low Level. We did the proper ECAM procedures and also notified company. After talking with [Maintenance Control] and company we made the decision to continue to ZZZ based on the weather and the runway length. The ECAM procedure meant that we would have to gravity extend the gear and also that we would not be able to clear the runway because we would not have nose wheel steering. We notified ATC that we would not be able to clear the runway and as a precaution had CFR (Crash Fire Rescue team) ready. We landed uneventfully in ZZZ. Crash fire and rescue met us on the runway after we safely stopped the plane and towed us into the ramp with no further complications. I don't think there was a way to prevent this from happening.


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


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported a hydraulic system anomaly; and using gravity gear extension before landing.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZUUU.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: [We] called Chengdu Tower for route clearance; taxi clearance; and taxi off. Tower was working all frequencies. [I] briefed First Officer on normal taxi out procedures. [We] called Tower for push back and engine start. Push back was normal [and we] called Tower for taxi instructions. Instructions as we remember them: Taxi T9; A2; B; B1; A1; Follow Me car to [Runway] 02L; hold short 02L at A1.The Follow Me car was at front of aircraft and proceeded to intersection of A2 and B. As we got close to the Follow Me; he turned northeast and headed for [Runway] 20R where previous cars have departed. I stopped the aircraft and looked right and left. There was no sign for B1. I saw the B taxi sign and looked at the airport page again. No details were present; so I went to the first supplemental airport page. Not much help there either. B1 shows connected to bottom of ramp. I concluded B Taxiway intersection of A1 was also B1. I delayed the turn as the Follow Me car left. A slow turn was executed left on B. Taxi south on B and right turn on A1 and held short of the category II line and waited for takeoff instructions.The Tower called a few minutes later and asked if we were holding short on A1. We confirmed we were holding short on A1. There was no traffic on the ground or in the air. We sensed something was wrong and started looking over the taxi route again. The First Officer found the second supplemental airport page and the details of where B1 was located. We should have turned right and taxied north to B1 and made a U-turn and taxied right past the intersection we stopped at with the Follow Me car on our way to A1. We waited for Tower to tell us we did not follow instruction and tell us to do a report. Moments later they called and gave us a takeoff clearance. Tower never said anything about the deviation.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier flight crew was confused by their taxi clearance at ZUUU when Taxiway B1; a part of their clearance; was not displayed on the airport page and they were unable to locate a sign identifying it.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was acting as Captain. Before signing in for duty; I was contacted by flight administration and then approached by a contract employee in flight operations to report to medical for a 'before' flight DOT drug screen. Which I will always be fine with; except the union pointed out that this request actually violated regulation regarding uninterrupted (by company/work related duties). I was told I did do the right thing by going to medical office after finally signing in for the test; 'but' I should have then gone home instead of attempting to operate my flight; which will now be 40 minutes late off the gate.Here comes the next issue. After taxiing out to the runway; We did have a flight control computer issue requiring return to gate. After a long delay with maintenance working out a deferral for this issue; we were unfortunately given directive to switch to a new aircraft. At this point it was brought to my attention that my passengers were boarded early on a flight with no captain coming anytime soon. This had our passengers on board this aircraft for a few minutes short of 4 hours. I believe the correct amount of the FAA fine for this approaches 2.8 million dollars.We did disembark pax at this point (way too late). I did check and found out that the FAs did make available snacks and water by the 2 hour mark.The passengers were onboard for well over 3 hours and were never offered any indication that they had the opportunity to deplane. I was very much involved with maintenance and reviewing cockpit procedures for the system deferral. Again I had no idea that the passengers were boarded early for my flight; where it was definitely known that it was never going to leave on time.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported passengers were on board the aircraft for over three hours due to a maintenance issue.