elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
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 Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The flight left the gate on time. Taxiing out we were instructed to contact Clearance Delivery. We were given a full reroute by ATC due to weather. We were cleared for Takeoff. I; the First Officer; was the pilot flying. AT 90-95 knots a Master Warning light came on and both the Captain and myself determined that the FORWARD ENTRY light is illuminated on the overhead panel. The Captain made the decision to reject the takeoff just prior to the 100 Knots callout being made. I called the Tower to let them know that Aircraft X is rejecting. I followed by asking the passengers in the cabin to remain seated. I also called the flight attendants to confirm that everything was ok in the back. I run the RTO checklist and looked at the brake cooling chart in the QRH. We cleared the runway and proceeded to find a gate to return to. Dispatch; operations; and maintenance were all notified and we were directed to return to a gate. We determined that 30-40 minutes of brake cooling time was required. After troubleshooting the FORWARD ENTRY door problem for a while; Tech Ops personnel decided to remove aircraft from service. We got assigned a different aircraft. The destination noise-abatement curfew was missed due to the delay we had and a decision was made to change the flight destination. The flight was uneventful.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they rejected takeoff due to an aircraft door malfunction.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Memo indicated that there might be a Thrust Reverser deployment issue as a result of RA (Radar Altimeter) interference because of 5G C-Band deployment. I was PM (Pilot Monitoring) and the FO (First Officer) was PF (Pilot Flying). Landing on 35R in DFW everything was normal throughout the approach. When in the final landing phase where the airplane uses the RA to call out 50; 40; 30; 20; 10 - we did not receive the 10 foot call. On landing the FO indicated that the thrust reversers would not deploy. I looked at the EICAS (Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System) display and they were armed. I looked at the switches as well. I took the controls and tried myself and indeed they would not deploy. NO REV Icon was displayed on the EICAS. They behaved exactly as they do when not armed. We exited the runway and I noted that the [Spoiler System] message was still deployed which seemed odd; but upon stopping it went away. I retried the reversers to see if they would unlock and they did and did indicate REV on the EICAS display.I am unsure if 5G C-band is even turned on in the DFW area. So I cannot say for sure this was interference. However; talking to MX (Maintenance) Control when I called them; they said [cellular company] did have their C-band turned on in the DFW area.




Synopsis: Pilot reported encountering possible 5G interference affecting the radio altimeter while on final to DFW.
Date: 201305
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Thirty one kilograms of Lithium batteries were loaded in lower forward cargo compartment.  The only fire protection in the lower cargo holds is Halon which is NOT EFFECTIVE against a Lithium battery fire.  Worst case scenario it could cause an explosive reaction with particular Lithium batteries. As Lithium battery fires are a recognized threat on cargo aircraft; and at least 2 aircraft have crashed due to onboard fires over the last couple years; any risks associated with carrying Lithium batteries as cargo should be minimized.  ALL Lithium ion/metal batteries should ALWAYS be loaded on the main cargo deck where the argon/cargo foam CFSS is supposedly effective in controlling the thermal runaway/chemical reaction involved in a Lithium battery fire; particularly when multiple batteries are on board.

Callback: The Captain states that Lithium ion/metal batteries should be loaded on the main cargo deck and easily accessible to the crew.  Most Lithium battery fires are the result of battery damage occurring in the shipping and loading process and visual inspection can reveal this damage.  A fire suppression system suitable for Lithium battery fires needs to be installed in aircraft that intend to transport these batteries and all batteries should be in metal containers.



Synopsis: Air carrier Captain is informed of Lithium batteries loaded in lower forward cargo compartment; which only has Halon as the fire suppression agent and is not effective against Lithium battery fires.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB; TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out on the MNZNO One RNAV Departure; we interpreted instructions from ABQ Departure to be 'climb to FL200.' This interpretation negates all altitude restrictions on the SID. Before handing us off to the ABQ Center Controller; Departure told us for future reference we needed to make the 'at or below' altitudes on a climb via clearance. We explained that we understood the clearance to be 'climb to FL200' (meaning unrestricted).  Had we interpreted the clearance to be climb via no mistake would have been made. [We should] state unrestricted climb in verbology when reading clearance back to ATC.


Second narrative: During climbout on the MNZNO Departure; ATC cleared us to climb. We did not hear the word 'via' and climbed through 9;000 feet before YUGLU. ATC said later that he had said VIA. Neither one of us heard that. The Company website has a video that came out yesterday about changes in phraseology. I will watch that and listen better and ask ATC if I am not sure of the clearance.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports crossing YUGLU above 9;000 feet on the MNZNO 1 departure from ABQ after being cleared to FL200 by Departure.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tires
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During routine tire pressure checks; I noticed that most or all or the tire pressure gauges in (STA) are reading 20-30 psi high or low. The calibration process seems to be failing and possibly resulting in grossly over/under serviced aircraft tires. Rarely do we have a correct reading tire gauge as checked on master regulator near tool room. Also the master regulator calibration is subject to fault issues per tool room personnel.




Synopsis: Tire pressure test equipment was found to be reading incorrectly. The calibration system is in question.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The #2 IRU [Inertial Reference Unit] would not align so we replaced the ADIRU [Air Data Inertial Reference Unit] and ADIRU battery. Which fixed the problem. Referenced the maintenance manual procedure after we replaced the parts. Closed the Circuit Breaker. The paperwork tell you to perform ops test   the IRU and ops test of air data system. The next steps are to close up the area. It does not tell me to do the auto land test. I found out that I was supposed to do this the next day when we had an IRU problem on [another aircraft]. I questioned why we had to do it on [the other aircraft model] but not a 717. According to  the Maintenance Manual. I should have done The Auto Land test on the 717. The B717 maintenance manual never told me perform the test. If the test is required; it should be part of the B717 procedure when I remove and replaced the ADIRU; or at least have a reference to go to the manual for more tests procedures. If I did not encounter the [other aircraft model] issue the next day I would not have known about the B717 issue. If the Auto Land Test is required it should be part of the B717 maintenance manual procedure.




Synopsis: B717 Maintenance Technician reported conflicting procedures resulted in autoland test not being performed prior to aircraft departure.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On takeoff roll the student pilot pushed in full throttle; the airplane accelerated slowly and the airspeed indicator was slow to move. As we moved down runway we had used more runway than a normal takeoff. The airspeed indicator was around 50 KIAS when I decided to abort the takeoff. We had used more than half the runway.I took control from the student pilot; and the airplane lifted into ground effect. I lowered the nose and simultaneously pull power to idle. We touched back down and I applied maximum braking. We ran off the end of the runway and into the grass clearing. As we were coming to a stop the nose went over a small ditch and we came to a stop nosed over. The prop was stopped; I pulled all fuel to off; removed the keys and exited the airplane with the student.When we exited I asked the student if he had any injuries; neither of us were injured.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a runway excursion following an aborted takeoff due to lack of acceleration.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-9
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On landing the right main wheel struck the roof of a vehicle that was traveling north on a road perpendicular to the end of the runway. Aircraft landed normally without incident. No parties were injured. Damage to aircraft was minor fracture of right main wheel pant.




Synopsis: During landing; an RV-9 right main gear touched the roof of a passing vehicle.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Pax
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Found approximately 50 'Out of Date' [passenger] oxygen canisters in B and C zones on a B777-200 aircraft; date found on most canisters was [more than 15 years ago from date they were found].  This is the third time we have found this situation on the 777 fleet in recent past.  We have found these three aircraft have come out of Heavy C-Check; done in new [Maintenance] facility in a foreign country.  I do not believe that our air carrier has disclosed these discrepancies.  [Recommend] having C-Checks done in this country where the FAA can monitor and Department of Transportation (DOT) can drug test personnel working on aircraft.  Where people and our air carrier can be held accountable for the work accomplished. Removed and Replaced (R/R) oxygen canisters. [Lack of] adequate training.




Synopsis: A Lead Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports finding 50 Passenger Oxygen Canisters that were 'Out of Date' on a company B777-200 aircraft. AMT noted the B777 was not the first aircraft in recent past that came out of a Heavy C-Check from a foreign maintenance facility with the same discrepancy.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 6
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I the instructor was to take Person X for a refresher flight as he was said to have previously held a Private Pilot certificate. Upon start up and taxi; Person X took questionable action to attempt to start the airplane as well as try to steer the Cessna 152 by use of yolk as if it were a steering wheel. After discussing with Person X that I would be in control of the aircraft and would use positive exchange of controls; I was solely controlling the aircraft while Person X viewed from the left seat. As I positioned the aircraft on Runway XX I advanced power to takeoff and talked through the procedure for Person X to listen. Halfway down the runway; Person X (without permission) positioned his hands on the controls of the aircraft and held the airplane in a position that I was unable to rotate; after several shouts 'LET GO; LET GO; LET GO NOW'; my only final action to recover control was to strike Person X to release the controls as we did not have sufficient runway to abort the takeoff. I was able to regain control and climbout to the East where I took time to regroup and kept Person X off the controls. We returned to the airport and discussed the situation. Person X is not welcome to come back for another flight as I find him unfit and dangerous for flight.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported having to strike a student to release the flight controls during takeoff after the student attempted to stop the aircraft from rotating and did not respond to verbal commands from the instructor to release the controls.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C SJC
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was very uneventful on the descent into SJC. We set up and briefed the ILS 12R per the ATIS. While we were being vectored to 12R ATC informed us that they had switched runways and to expect 30L. We had talked about the weather in the area and to have the radar up and to expect changes on the way into SJC. We performed the necessary changes per policy. ATC vectored us onto the ILS and we noticed that the identifier wasn't correct for 30L. We queried ATC. They said that 30L should be active and that they would check on it. We requested to track the LNAV course to the runway anticipating a visual approach and they said that was ok. I had gear down and flaps 15 and was descending to our cleared altitude of 3000' on a proper descent path. Shortly after we confirmed a good ident on ILS 30L. I had a hard time slowing because of the weather and verbalized it to my Captain; we still had time to be stabilized as we were at 1500 ft AGL. I got fully configured at 800 ft on speed and on glide slope when shortly afterward ATC told us 'low altitude alert' and we received a GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) 'caution obstacle' warning shortly after ATC's call. We executed a missed approach and came back around uneventfully. Not sure what happened there as I was on glide slope; on speed and we had the correct altimeter setting. I can say I learned to go around when the aircraft wasn't slowing down with gear down and flaps 15. I have seen gusts where this wasn't a factor; but this was too long to slow. I was thinking of the being stabilized gates instead of listening to my gut which was telling me something isn't right here.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC and a GPWS caution shortly thereafter while on ILS approach to SJC.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the ERLIN 9 RNAV Arrival into Atlanta; encountered three wake turbulence events after which I asked if we were following a Heavy. ATC responded that we were preceded by a B757. After passing NOFIV and clearance to a lower altitude I asked the pilot flying to shallow the descent to avoid further wake encounter. Once the B757 turned base we were able to keep traffic in sight and in our base turn with a speed assignment of 170 KTS; we were asked to follow the B757 to the airport but maintain present heading and plan a turn to join final. ATC provided heading to join final and cleared us for a visual approach call the Tower at AJAAY. At this point we continued to slow and configure due to being above glide slope. Before reaching AJAAY; Approach asked our speed and instructed aircraft behind us to slow. I believe that ATC was planning for us to keep our 170 KTS until reaching the marker as stated in Safety Alert [bulletin]. Our clearance was cleared visual approach with no stated speed to the marker. Believe I may have become too conservative in my approach to wake avoidance. With traffic volume into ATL should have done a better job with ATC communication.




Synopsis: A B737-700 pilot reported deviating from ATC assigned speed to increase spacing behind a B757 that was causing some wake turbulence.