elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was referred a student named Mr. X by my company. I was told that he was an Instrument Rated Private Pilot who had received a letter from the FAA requesting a re-examination of his IR a.k.a. the dreaded 709 ride. Apparently he passed the check ride years ago; and the examiner was recently found guilty of conducting check rides inappropriately. I flew with the student 3 times as an instructor; and once as a safety pilot to help him brush up on instrument skills in preparation for the 709 ride. One of the flights was to help him regain night currency. After those 3 flights; I no longer saw the student. I heard that he decided to wrap things up somewhere else due to a disagreement between him and my company. A few days ago I got a phone call telling me that the owner of my company is involved in a lawsuit; and that the 'Mr. X' situation would be used against him. After some discussion; I found out that at the time the student was seeking flight training; he was not a US citizen; and did not have TSA clearance to undergo any flight training. On top of that; it had been over 24 months since his last biennial flight review (BFR). I was not aware of any of this information at the time. Naturally; I was worried. After some searching; I was unable to locate any information or guidance regarding whether or not any TSA clearance is required to undergo training for a 709 check ride; and as far as I know it is permissible to provide instruction to individuals who do not have a current BFR. I am quite certain he broke several FAR's by acting as PIC on that flight where I was the safety pilot; though I am not sure where that leaves me when acting as a required crew member when he was under the hood. While I am not sure if I violated any regulations; I feel it is on the safe side for me to submit this report and learn from this event. In the future; I should check and verify the records and documentation of any prospective students; instead of fully trusting and taking the word of colleagues/peers/organizations.




Synopsis: Instrument instructor reports being assigned a foreign student for refresher training in preparation for a 709 ride. The student does not complete the training and the instructor is later informed that the student was not a US citizen; did not have a TSA clearance to undergo flight training and did not have a current BFR.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to COVID-19 and family issues there has been a considerable limited amount of flying. I am flying practice flights to regain proficiency in all aspects.Did not call in to Approach until 16 miles from ZZZ instead of the required 20 miles.It was a miss communication caused by time away and now getting back into the system after the layoff. This is why I am practicing in VFR conditions with various phases of flight.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported not contacting ATC at the required DME due to lack a of flying time during the pandemic.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Control Column
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll; the jet's nose began to rise when the First Officer (FO) reduced forward side stick pressure to neutral. I visually noticed the jet's nose rising and holding a nose up pitch. The mains didn't feel as if they had extended struts and lifted off. I checked the side stick indications on the PFD (Primary Flight Display) and it had been removed so the jet definitely thought we were in the air. The FO applied forward command of the side stick but not enough to force the nose wheel back to the ground. He didn't want the jet to go into the landing mode with max auto brakes already selected as we do normally for takeoff. By this time I checked the airspeed and it indicated 120 KIAS (approx 40 below V1). We continued to accelerate to V1 and Vr. I told the First Officer to use caution on rotation. He neutralized the side stick and the jet had enough elevator command in neutral position to gain altitude. As we moved into the 2nd segment of the climb; the jet flew normally due to the auto trim adjustment after takeoff. When we reached TOC (Top of Climb); we reviewed our actions including trim settings and performance numbers for takeoff and everything checked out as normal. I even remember checking the performance trim setting against the CG trim setting in the Fuel Pred page of the FMGC after engine start (my normal 'gross error' check on every flight). We could only determine that the jet may have been loaded in error or the load numbers were reported with an error to Maintenance so we sent an ACARS message to the Dispatcher asking for a baggage loading audit on arrival. Dispatch responded telling us the Sector Manager would command the audit at our arrival. Request result of load audit for any ASAP recommendations.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported side stick malfunctioned during take off. Captain further reported corrective action by First Officer allowed flight to continue safely.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VNY.Tower, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called SCT for a release. They said 'hold for release' but all I heard was 'release'. I departed the aircraft without a release and SCT called to ask why he was airborne. I did not observe any conflicting IFR traffic. Change the phraseology from 'hold for release' to 'hold'. If frequencies or controllers are loud you might miss the hold part of the communication. This phraseology doesn't make any sense. Would we make the cancel takeoff phraseology 'cancel cleared for takeoff'? Of course not.




Synopsis: VNY Tower Controller reports of releasing an IFR aircraft off the airport when he was instructed by the overlying TRACON to hold for release.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Landing
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
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; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We went through with our beverage service with no problems. After the second trash service; Flight Attendant (FA) D came back and informed us that she had to ask [Passenger in] XX4 to put his mask on since he was no longer eating or drinking. We believe the person was supposed to be seated in XX5 but was with his family. She then had to ask him a few more times to put his mask back on. When we went to go by with the final trash service before landing; we noticed he again was not wearing his mask at all and not actively eating or drinking. I went up to him and informed him that we need him to wear his mask and it needs to be over his nose and mouth as part of the policy. He then informed me that he had a medical issue preventing him from wearing the mask. I let him know that it has been a policy that every person flying must wear their mask over their nose and mouth and that I didn't want to report him which would suspend his travel privileges with us. He looked at me very annoyed and said 'well if I hold my water bottle; I cannot wear my mask; right?' I let him know that our policy is to wear your mask when not actively eating or drinking. So if he isn't drinking; he needs to be wearing his mask. I let him know that if he has a medical condition; then he may need to fly with a different carrier for the time being and that if he had a return flight; he would need to comply. He then took his mask off; and started to actively drink his water slowly so he didn't have to wear it. We were about to land; and at that point it was too late to give him another warning. I spoke to the Customer Service Agent upon landing and informed her of the situation and she discovered they were flying back in a week. I let her know I was going to fill out a report and she said she would talk to her lead about what to do next.Potentially suspend his flying privileges; but not his wife and child. They were complying the whole time. He was the only one not complying.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger refused to comply with the face mask policy during flight.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We started the APU and turned the packs on. The entire plane filled with a smoky haze with a strong old sock smell. The smoke cleared in a few minutes but the smell continued. We called for a mechanic. Unknown to us the fire department was called out due to smoke from cargo hold. We had no indications in the cockpit. They checked it out and found no fire. Maintenance believed smoke was from APU oil leaking into air system. This resulted in having to get a new plane from the hangar and a long rolling delay. We found out the plane needed to be cleaned also so the last XA:15 am departure time posted was not going to happen. My First Officer and I agreed we were not safe to operate the flight.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported 'strong old sock odor' during pre-flight at the gate resulting in maintenance inspection and ultimately an aircraft swap.  The new aircraft required cleaning causing further delays.  The flight crew decided they were unfit to fly due to all the delays.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction; Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout we smelled an acrid burning rubber smell. I contacted the flight attendants and they were smelling it also. We continued the climb looking at possible malfunctions and warning lights; no abnormal indications were noted. Flight attendants called back and stated that the smell was getting worse; at this point we declared the emergency and requested radar vectors to Runway 18R. We ran the QRH procedure; coordinated with ATC for Airport Rescue and Fire Fighters and Company notification and provided the necessary details to ATC regarding 141 SOB and 14;000 LBS fuel on board. We were handed off to Tower cleared for the visual 18R approach and were in direct contact with 'Command' the Airport Rescue and Fire Fighters (ARFF) unit. On the downwind leg to the airport the smell had subsided and we advised Command of our status. Approach; landing and rollout were uneventful. ARFF looked us over; no heat signatures noted and we proceeded to the gate where we terminated the emergency. Particularly noteworthy was the effort of First Officer who flew a perfect approach and landing; the quickness of the ARFF to respond and the expeditious handling by Departure and Approach Control and Tower. The heat detector worked extremely well and is a great feature to have. Also the flight attendants were helpful in providing updates to the cabin condition.


Second narrative: Shortly after takeoff; the Captain and I smelled an acrid 'burned rubber' smell. He called back to the flight attendants and they smelled it also and reported it to be getting stronger. We declared an emergency; followed QRH procedures and returned to land. The smell dissipated by landing. ARFF unit met the aircraft on landing; detected no unusual heat signatures. We returned to the gate and off loaded the passengers.


Synopsis: Shortly after takeoff an MD80 flight crew and flight attendants detected an acrid burning rubber odor; so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure where Airport Rescue and Fire Fighters detected no heat spots.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was a go around off of OAK on a 270 heading climbing to 2000 ft. Aircraft X was a go around because a flight of military fighters that departed OAK on the wrong beacon code and auto acquired as an air carrier. While working on repositioning the data block; track suspending and putting a hold message on the air carrier flight; getting the military fighters radar identified vectored and climbing; I missed Aircraft X check on at a 270 heading climbing to 2000 ft. It was approximately 6 seconds from the initial check on of Aircraft X at 2000 ft. until the aircraft entered an MVA of 2400 ft. I reached out to Aircraft X turned and climbed him; but after he had entered the 2400 ft MVA. Do not stop a go around below an MVA on the direct heading of the aircraft.


Second narrative: Due to the new MVAs all OAK go arounds must be issued 3000 ft for the new MVA changes.


Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controllers reported distractions caused a go-around aircraft at OAK to enter an area below the MVA.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: Captain; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Sitting at the approach end of the runway I received an IFR clearance. After receiving the clearance from Departure Control; I was told to hold on for a release. About 5 minutes went by and not hearing anything on the radio I called; and no one answered. Radio reception was a little weak on the field; so I thought I lost reception. I called Approach on my cell phone. When the controller answered he said he was still working on a release time; and to hold on. I was still holding on the phone when we heard the controller give a clearance to another pilot on the field with an EDT. of XA:50. At XA:25 I knew we had to be getting close; so I called; he gave me a release to be airborne in 3 minutes or less and we immediately took off. After departure we followed the IFR clearance; climbed to 3000 feet; flew runway heading. I contacted Departure Control and told them we were off and at 3000 feet. The controller then asked; are you on the ground. I replied; no I was at 3000 feet IFR. Then he asked; did you take off without a clearance? I replied no. He then said; call us at this phone number ###-###-####. I don't have time for you now; squawk 1200 maintain VFR. I will call you back. At this point we were trying to maintain VFR as best we could and climbed to 10500 feet to stay VFR. We then contacted the next Approach Control and received our clearance. After landing we called the number the controller gave us. They apologized; and said it was their mistake; the controller was working a few different aircraft and our release was mixed up with another aircraft. My biggest concern is with the Departure Controller. I understand he did not know we were coming. He also thought we departed without clearance. He should have never told us to maintain VFR conditions when we were already IFR and refused to give us service. He put us in a dangerous situation in one of the highest traffic areas of the country. In 35 years of IFR flying; I have never heard of a controller refusing service; even if the pilot was wrong.




Synopsis: A Pilot reported they departed with an IFR Clearance and when they checked on with Departure Control they were told to maintain VFR and their IFR clearance was not honored by ATC.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was southeast bound at FL350; reported passing KANUA at XA:03Z; estimating KYLLE at XA:36Z. Aircraft Y was northeast bound at FL350; estimating SEDAR at XA:15Z. Initially the two aircraft did not probe in conflict with each other. A time update on one or both aircraft made the atop computer show the two aircraft were going to be in conflict approximately 20 minutes prior to them entering the conflict status; and showed them crossing each other with 14 and a half minutes when 15 minutes are required. Due to the evening rush there were no available altitudes for vertical separation to be established. The Controller working Sector 1 and 2; who was currently active control of Aircraft X; issued Aircraft X an offset 10 miles right of course to establish the lateral separation required. At that moment Aircraft X encountered CPDLC problems and the clearance couldn't be delivered through CPDLC. The Controller at Sector 1 and 2 issued the clearance through [Commercial Radio] as usual when an aircraft encounters CPDLC issues. [Commercial Radio] was unable to reach Aircraft X to issue the clearance. By the time [Commercial Radio] got ahold of Aircraft X the aircraft had already passed each other and Aircraft Y was in radar airspace with ZSE.Make a better attempt to move both aircraft instead of just one.




Synopsis: Oakland Oceanic Controller reported two aircraft at the same altitude; attempting to fix the problem but was unable due to communication failures.