elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi out; ATC alerted us to a tailpipe fire from the #2 engine. Both engines had been running for longer than 5 minutes by this point. We stopped the airplane and ran the engine Tailpipe fire checklist shutting down the #2 engine. We requested ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting) ground personnel be dispatched to the aircraft immediately. We communicated with the cabin crew to report back if they had observed any fire/smoke indications. Cabin crew reported no fire or smoke. ARFF responded shortly after the tailpipe fire checklist had been completed. We communicated with ARFF on a different frequency when they arrived. ARFF confirmed non-specific indications of a fire in engine #2. There were no indications of a fire on the flight deck. Further indications from the cabin crew indicated some fumes in the aft cabin but no fire/smoke. Communication from ARFF personnel was brief and non-specific about details of what was being observed with regard to engine #2. During radio communication; ARFF asked us to verify that the engine fire bottles had been discharged. The emergency personnel on the radio implied the engine #2 fire bottle should be discharged. As a precaution; and without specific details regarding the status of the engine fire; lack of visual reference to the situation - both fire bottles on engine #2 were discharged. After further inspecting the engine and aircraft; ARFF determined a fire was no longer present and low heat was observed coming from the engine. The aircraft was towed back to gate 96 with ARFF escort. All passengers were deplaned safely into the boarding area. Logbook entries were entered.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being advised of a tailpipe fire while taxiing to the runway.
Date: 202008
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My inbound crew was delayed due to weather; customs; and CA request [for] a meal break. FAs arrived at approx XA:30 and FD arrived at XA:45.  Paperwork indicates flight was closed at XA:35. Standby FAs told us they were called and when they advised the agents the plane was too hot; they were told they must board and passengers said they boarded on time.  There was minimum power (lights only) NO AC and NO air circulating.  Passengers were fanning themselves; perspiring profusely and said they had been waiting for about 45 minutes.   The CA said it was 27 Celsius onboard which may meet the standards to board;  but not to sit on a full (including X children) plane for an extended time.  When I asked the agent if he had checked the onboard temperature; he said he had no way to do that.  2 Managers (did not introduce themselves) later came onboard and said the plane was hooked up to the APU; and I suggested they talk with the passengers about their experience.  I later saw the agents on the bridge with what appeared to be a temperature gauge.  My concerns are (1) our passengers were needlessly made to sit on a hot plane. (2) Pre-boarders expressed their concerns and they were ignored; and (3) the plane was full so there was no social distancing.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that passengers were boarded onto an aircraft that was too hot.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Late to aircraft due to backup at immigration. We were advised by ATC departures that we [were] being delayed due to weather by 20 minutes. Asked for permission to pushback and start and take the delay at the runway which was approved. During climbout after flap retraction leaving 10000 feet noticed maximum maneuvering speed 'tape' (redline) at 270 kts; also noted white EICAS message 'VMO GEAR DOWN' displayed beneath the white 'SEAT BELT ON' memo message. No supplemental or 'unannunciated' checklist were available. I contacted maintenance and dispatch via message and SAT phone. We followed the procedure sent to the aircraft printer. Accessed the following screens: System; Maint; Maint Contrl Pages; Misc System control. The overspeed warning was set to 'Gear Down'.Page was 'blued out' and no access to reset the warning to 'Norm'. Boeing was conferenced in and concluded item can only be reset on the ground. We weighed air return with a required fuel dump. With dispatch concurrence since the item resulted in false over speed warning due to a maintenance action verses an actual problem with the gear; we decided to continue. A new flight plan was sent considering the reduced speed and increased time and fuel burn. At ZZZ intersection noted flight plan was optimistic as to speed and burn was off--contacted dispatch with our manual calculations--dispatch re-checked and reissued flight plan.


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


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported the gear down overspeed warning was being left in 'Gear Down' position during a maintenance action; so after takeoff the crew was not able to accelerate or climb to a normal altitude. It was a false warning; so after consulting with ground support they were able to continue and land normally.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
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; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landed on runway 09L. Weather was 53 degrees F; Wind 063/10; 10SM; F007; Broken 085.  Normal touchdown; landing and rollout.  Taxied clear of runway and began taxiing back to the gate.While taxiing; I began making a slight left turn at the elbow of M2. While in the turn; the aircraft started skidding straight ahead and to the right and would not negotiate the left turn.  The aircraft was headed off the taxiway so I applied more brakes and tried to continue my left turn with nose wheel steering. The aircraft felt like the brakes were cycling with antiskid but after a discussion with maintenance; I belief I was feeling the nose wheel skidding. I applied even more brakes to stop the aircraft from exiting the taxiway which allowed me to gain control of the aircraft.Note:  No GS was displaying and I assume the aircraft was moving less than 10 kts.At this point; the aircraft was very close to the right taxiway edge and I was concerned that we might have hit one of the taxi lights or even departed the prepared surface. I elected to stop straight ahead and we coordinated with [airport operations] to drive out and check the taxiway.  We also contacted Company for a tow-in.   No damage was found to the taxiway. No damage was found to the aircraft.  We were towed to the gate uneventfully.


Second narrative: Captain taxiing in from 9R; a few taxi turns after landing. On the left turn; nose wheel steering was lost resulting in a skid off of the taxi centerline. Differential braking seemed available to allow a stop and avoidance of taxi lights as well as keeping the aircraft on the asphalt.


Synopsis: After landing and exiting the runway; a B737 nosewheel apparently failed at the beginning of a turn. The Captain was able to stop the aircraft before exiting the taxiway.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
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: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Our crews should know about this 'known' issue before trying to fly this approach. On approach we briefed a Visual Approach backed up by the ILS. There was no NOTAM or ATIS information describing any issues with the ILS. The First Officer ran the approach checklist and had no abnormal indications with identifying the frequency for the ILS. On base to final; we were cleared for the Visual Approach. I armed the ILS with the autopilot on. As we started to cross the centerline of the final approach course; I realized the localizer was not coming alive and the autopilot was continuing on its present course of about 245 on the heading. I verified via the NAV Display that we were lined up for the right runway. I turned off the autopilot; and manually flew the approach to the runway. After landing; we asked Approach/Tower/Ground (All the same person) if the ILS was out of service. He stated that there have been reports of it not working in the past and he would pass along the information to airport facilities. It would have been nice for us to have had a heads up from Approach or a NOTAM of some kind that there have been previous issues with this ILS signal.There are other notes about GPS jamming from the military and that sometimes RNAV approaches are not possible. I'm just glad the weather was good. Please let ATC know we'd like to have some information about possible problems with their Localizer signal. Thank you for your time.[There was] no Localizer signal; even though there was a good identification with Morse code. I suggest ATC pass information directly or via ATIS; a NOTAM; a JEPP note on company page; or company alert to the airport in range message. I haven't flown in here much so I don't know if this is a reoccurring event or not.




Synopsis: Captain reported not receiving the localizer signal while flying the ILS Runway 22 into ELP; consequently; overshooting the final approach centerline.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Shortly after leveling off at 10000 ft we experienced wake turbulence with an updraft causing the aircraft to rise above our target altitude.  I immediately returned the aircraft to our assigned altitude.Vigilant monitoring with the expectation of wake turbulence and/or windshear will aid in a faster response time to corrective action.


Second narrative: During initial climbout after taking off from DFW; we leveled at 10;000 as instructed by ATC. Shortly after that; we noticed the airplane started to gain some altitude; and the FO (PF) quickly corrected it. We believe this was due the effects of wake turbulence.Suggest using autopilot (we were performing a non RNAV departure out of DFW). In my opinion; having autopilot OFF at the moment of the incident helped to correct deviation in a faster way. However; keeping it ON may be beneficial in terms of extra vigilance for nearby airplanes that may create wake turbulence.


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported deviating from their cleared altitude after encountering wake turbulence.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Fluid
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climbout after gear and slat retraction; we received a green [hydraulic] system fluid low warning on ECAM. We complied with the ECAM procedures and were directed to the QRH. Ran the ECAM for low hydraulic quantity. First Officer ran appropriate checklists while I communicated with ATC; coordinated with landing visual to Runway XX at ZZZ. We manually extended the gear and landed uneventfully on Runway XX stopped straight ahead; and were towed to the gate.Event caused by hydraulic system malfunction.


Second narrative: During climbout; after gear and slat retraction; the ECAM green system hydraulic fluid low warning occurred. Deployed gear manually. Notified ATC. Completed QRH and returned to ZZZ.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported an uneventful air return due to a Hydraulic system malfunction during initial climb.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MAF.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MAF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The first attempt to land at MAF was unsuccessful due to fog; and the flight returned to [departure airport]. The flight then changed Captains; and was re-dispatched to MAF. The Captain was on his second day of being junior assigned; and was pulled off his deadhead aircraft home; to do the turn to MAF. He was understandably upset. The second Captain was having problems hearing the First Officer (FO) thru the [comms]; since there was no 'hot MIC' function on this [aircraft]. Unfortunately this was not identified until the return trip. The Captain missed several CRM calls from the FO; on climbout; and the FO assumed it was due to his emotional state; but is was also due to the [comm issue]. Upon approach to MAF; Approach Control vectored the flight to a position north of MAF; and asked if they had the field in sight. MAF had recently had a snow and frost event; and the Crew was having problems identifying the field. Everything looked white. The Captain responded that they had it; the FO concurred and began to maneuver for landing. At approximately 1;300 feet AGL; both pilots noted that the runway did not line up with the navaids and verbalized that; 'this doesn't look right.' At that time MAF Tower informed the Crew that they were lined up on the wrong airfield. A go-around was conducted; the flight maneuvered for the proper airfield; and landed uneventfully.Hot MICs should be installed on all aircraft.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported lining up for the wrong airport in a ground white-out condition. Poor internal cockpit communications was a factor.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Established in cruise flight headed west at 8;500 MSL 20 nm east of ZZZ VOR. Had a Cessna fly over us within 50 ft. above us headed east bound not climbing or descending. As soon as conflict happened I (instructor) nosed over to lose altitude to maximize what distance away from the plane as we can.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported a near-miss during cruise with a Cessna just above them heading in the opposite direction.
Date: 201312
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight Attendant A called C and B to forward galley and asked if we noticed any smell. There was a wet; dirty sock smell; and A called the Captain to inform him of our observations. We landed at a divert airport and outside Maintenance was called to check for issues. After six hours of tests; flight was canceled and flight attendants went to hotel and cockpit crew ferried to a Maintenance base.




Synopsis: An A319 Flight Attendant crew all detected a wet; dirty socks odor in the forward galley area. The Captain was notified and diverted to a nearby airport where the flight was canceled while the pilots ferried the aircraft to a maintenance base.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AGS.TRACON, GA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E AGS
ATC / advisory: TRACON AGS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ft. Gordon range control call to update us on aircraft involved with the ALTRA [ALTRV Altitude Reservation].  I was OSIC; I have never worked an ALTRA; none of the controllers on duty have been briefed on what was to happen; or have worked with the military ALTRA.  There was no; as in none; briefing done by management to cover this event. The controllers on duty were left to scramble and do the best they could to read the 7110.65 to have a clue on how things are to be handled.If local management can't find the time to brief the workforce on what we are to do in this type of unusual situation then I suggest that they be replaced.




Synopsis: AGS FLM reports of an ALTRV that no one was briefed on.  The controllers were unfamiliar with an ALTRV and apparently have never worked one before.