elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Sector 39 was working Aircraft X at FL350 when he [advised of] a pressurization problem. The controller immediately requested I turn Aircraft Y out of the way so Aircraft X could descend. I did this and the 39 Controller cleared the aircraft down through the altitude of Aircraft Y once it became clear the aircraft were established on different courses. Traffic was called to Aircraft Y shortly after turning him.This is something I've worried about in the past; if an aircraft needs to descend immediately; do we officially clear him through another aircraft? Call the traffic and say; do what you want? I would like guidance on what we need to do to help the pilots but also keep ourselves out of trouble.




Synopsis: ZDC ARTCC Controller reported that an aircraft needed to perform a rapid descent through the altitude and proximity of another IFR aircraft.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: JYO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was returning from an instructional flight with a student in a Cessna 172R and descending out of 1;500 FT MSL for traffic pattern altitude 1;199 FT at JYO airport when a personal quadcopter UAV passed us by our left wing within 20 FT at 1;500 FT MSL. We were quite surprised by this and felt safety could have been compromised had this flying device been any closer. The device was between 3-3.5 FT vertical and 2-3 FT in diameter; and looked like a tripod with a fixed rotor attached to the top of it. We filed a report with Potomac TRACON for a near miss with a quadcopter. The conditions at the time were good visibility with clear skies and winds calm. We identified the location at 333 radial from AML VOR at 13.7 NM within the 2;500 FT ring of the Washington Dulles Class B airspace.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reports a NMAC with a UAV at 1;500 FT just north of JYO.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I accepted the hand-off on Aircraft X from ZZZ approach and put a PVD (Plan View Display) on what I thought was ZZZ Approach LO's scope. I was very busy working three sectors combined and simply climbed Aircraft X on check on. A few minutes later in my hurried scan I noticed that he was in ZZZ Approach lows airspace climbing through 110 but the P [position symbol] was still a P not an A [position symbol]. I looked at the P and noticed why. I had put it on sector XY's scope not sector XX's. Just a mistake of being busy and being in an expect things to go as planned and hope for the best mode instead of a calm verify everything and plan for the worst mode. There really isn't a recommendation. While we're in this skeleton crew phase there's nothing that can be done and this is just the way things are day in and day out.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported a mistake involving handing off an aircraft to the wrong sector and cited staffing levels as a contributing factor.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for the RNAV Visual Approach 26R. On the final segment; I selected the ILS frequency to get the blue overlay as a back up. As we began the descent at the FAF using snowflake guidance; I became uncomfortable with the descent rate and recall 'feeling low.' I disconnected the autopilot; corrected the pitch and called for Flaps 45 degrees. It wasn't until after the flaps were set at 45 degrees when I noticed that we were just below 1;000 FT above airport elevation. This was the first RNAV Visual Approach I have flown; so I was focusing most of my attention to altitude restrictions and verifying that the aircraft was following the correct approach path. I was briefly confused that the blue overlay didn't appear (because the ILS was not loaded.) The snow flake descent took us below the standard glide path; so I had to disconnect the autopilot and reestablish glide path.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Captain; flying his first ever RNAV Visual approach to Runway 26R at ATL; tuned; but did not display; the ILS as a back up to the RNAV driven 'snowflake.' Confusion reigned until he was 'feeling low' on the approach and reverted to visual perception to arrest his excessive rate of descent; restabilize and complete the approach and landing.
Date: 201411
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Lifevest/Jacket
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We preflighted our emergency equipment; and saw that there was a seal on the package of live vests. I assumed that was there for a reason; and that the correct items were inside. When we had to distribute infant life vests and opened the package; there were none. We checked out our manual and saw that dual chamber life vests could be used for infants. The package contained only single chamber life vests; which specifically state not to use for less than 35 pounds. I called zone about this and so did the Captain. They said ORD was out of dual chamber life vests and infant life vests as well. They added that this had been an ongoing problem from the day before. It was deferred and logged. We [then] flew [two overwater legs] with no infant life vests! This is unacceptable and made us very uncomfortable. Thank God there was no incident!




Synopsis: Although before departure the reporter; a Flight Attendant; discovered and advised the flight crew and company that there were no certified suitable child live vests aboard the aircraft the round trip overwater flight was allowed to continue as there were no qualifying vests available at the station.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-8
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise; had increasing oil temp and decreasing RPM. Engine started running rough and continued to lose RPM. Engine soon froze. I picked out a road and made a dead stick landing. No one was hurt onboard or on the ground; no damage was done on landing to anything. EMS responded.




Synopsis: Vans RV8 pilot reported that the engine failed during cruise flight.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent approximately 70 NM out passing through FL340 for 15;000 FT; we noticed the #2 engine rollback and fail on us. We ran the Engine Failure/Shutdown Checklist and declared an emergency. Flight Attendant called us and reported a passenger had seen smoke coming from the #2 engine at which time we ran the Engine Fire/Severe Damage/Separation/Seizure memory items checklist. We had no abnormal indications associated with the reported smoke. The approach and landing were uneventful and the aircraft was closely inspected by emergency personnel on Taxiway C before being cleared to taxi to the gate.


Second narrative: Approximately 70 NM out; using VNAV DESC NOW and passing FL340; the #2 engine rolled back to wind milling RPM. Declared an emergency; continued the descent; and initiated the Engine Failure/Shutdown Checklist. During this process; the flight deck received a call from the Flight Attendant stating that one of the passengers reported smoke coming from the #2 engine. The Captain elected to initiate the Engine Fire/Severe Damage/Separation/Seizure memory items/checklist. Other than the reported smoke; no other abnormal indications were observed. All remaining checklist items were accomplished and an uneventful landing was made with the one engine inoperative. After exiting runway; the aircraft was stopped and fire response checked for damage. No damage was found and taxi was continued to the gate. After parking and shutdown; fire response checked the #2 engine and brakes for high temperature. No high temperature was noted for the engine; but the brakes were at 600 degrees. Passengers deplaned normally with no apparent indications of inordinate stress or apprehension.The Captain informed the Flight Attendants via service interphone of the situation and plan for landing. At that time; the Flight Attendants were directed to secure the cabin for arrival. Shortly after that; the Captain attempted to inform the passengers of the problem and plan; but unknown to him; both the flight deck and Flight Attendant's PA had ceased to function. Again on the ground as fire response approached; the Captain attempted to inform the passengers of the process and again the PA was inoperative.


Synopsis: B737-300 flight crew experiences an engine flame out as thrust is reduced to idle at the top of descent. No attempt to restart the engine is made and a successful single engine landing ensues.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Acting captain; flying pilot; during company line-check; observed the non-flying pilot experiencing difficulties checking in with Cleveland Center (ZOB) after receiving a hand-off from Toledo Departure Control.  After the air traffic controller called the aircraft twice; the controller called a third time and stated that if the aircraft could hear the controller to contact them on an alternate frequency.  I noticed the non-flying pilot was not reacting/responding to the radio call and I could not directly communicate with the non-flying pilot over the crew intercom system; so I changed the radio frequency and checked in with Cleveland Center (ZOB).The non-flying pilot observed the radio frequency change; confused with the change; and returned the radio to the original frequency. Flying and Non-Flying Pilots quickly identified that the 'Crew Intercom' activation switch had been deactivated; and regained crew communication.Flying pilot became alarmed when his radio began receiving the KTOL ATIS; and became more actively involved with understanding the status of the radio settings.  During this time; the non-flying pilot was checking in with Cleveland Center.It took additional time for the crew to identify that the 'Split Mode' switch was activated; causing the pilot and co-pilot to be transmitting/receiving independently on two different communication radios (tuned to two different frequencies).  If the flying pilot selected COM-1; the non-flying pilot radio automatically changed to COM-2.  When the non-flying pilot reselected COM-1; the flying pilot automatically/involuntarily changed back to COM-2.There was a short period of time where the each pilot was alternating to COM-1 (Cleveland Center; while the other pilot was on a different radio/frequency) and subsequently communicating with the Cleveland Center as that controller was actively trying to understand why two distinctively different voices (pilot & copilot) was responding as the same aircraft.After the 'Split Mode' switched was resolved; and both pilots were concurrently on Com-1; the flying-pilot relinquished all radio communications back to the non-flying pilot.




Synopsis: An air taxi Captain reported that the flight crew had difficulty in managing the radio panel.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A passenger came back to use the lavatory during flight; I noticed he had his mask hanging around one ear not covering his mouth. When he came out of the lavatory; I asked him to put on his mask; he replied; 'Why? Is something going on that I should know about?' and walked to his seat; he did not put his mask on. I went over to his seat and asked him to put on his mask again for everyone's safety. He replied; 'Why? Am I not wearing it right?' I responded that the mask needed to cover his mouth and nose. He then grabbed the mask and broke the string; he said; 'Damn it; I guess I can't wear it now.' I told him we have more masks and went in the back to the galley and grabbed another mask for him. After handing it to him; I left.  Later on in the flight after my final descent announcement; I was passing through the cabin doing my final sweep and saw he was still not wearing the mask. I asked him again to put it on; that it is a requirement to wear a mask while on the aircraft. He told me he can't breathe with it on and unless I had a ventilator he wasn't going to wear it. At this point; I felt that it wasn't constructive anymore and he wasn't going to comply; I didn't know what else to do so I left.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that a passenger refused to wear a face mask during the flight.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The [landing gear change] crew had been briefed that if they needed to remove and use a part from the 'Off' [removed] gear; that they were to ensure that the damaged or Unserviceable part was shipped with the 'Off' unit. This was briefed based on the information provided by [our] Air Carrier Vendor Representative and the Contract Maintenance Landing Gear Repair Station Vendor Representative; during a Station visit during the first Main Landing Gear (MLG) change. They explained that the contract was different from the previous contract in that; the gear was Overhauled as a whole [Assembly]. If parts were missing; our Air Carrier is charged; but if the part is Unserviceable it is covered under the contract. This is how the decision came to swap the MLG Upper Side Stay Spring attach pin with the 'Off' unit. All of the parties involved; including myself; were aware that the MLG was a Time-Limited item; but not the individual pin. The paperwork does not state that these are Time-Limited parts.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic working on an A320 aircraft in a Hangar; reports that an overhauled Main Landing Gear (MLG) Upper Side Stay Spring attach pin was removed and replaced with the pin from the 'Off' (removed) MLG. Their MLG paperwork did not state the old attach pin was also a Time-Limited part.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the demo B; C and D flight attendants approach me asking if I smelled anything odd. They stated they smell fuel about row 28 aft. I said no. Captain call the forward galley and asked if I smelled anything and he said we need to go back to the gate. While the aircraft was returning to the gate I decided to check again for an odd smell and this time I smelled an oil odd smell and I knew something was wrong. Return to the gate and supervisor met the plane. Passengers were removed and we were sent to the hospital. Due to the requirements of the flight attendant we are required to report it.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported oil and fuel fumes during taxi. Shortly thereafter Captain reported fumes as well and gate return.