elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger was standing in [the] aisle holding his backpack up and smoke was coming from it; I grabbed fire containment bag; called Captain. Gave containment bag to another passenger; former Pilot/now Corporate Pilot; to take to cabin area where there was smoke Non revenue Flight Attendant seated [who] sprang into action; opening the containment bag. I grabbed halon; PBE and passed it to nonrev pilot who had come forward. Aft Flight Attendant had come forward with halon; had turned lights to bright and instructed pax to stay low because of smoke. I gathered water; juices to wet containment bag. Passed cans to a deadheading Flight Attendant; who had come forward; to take to fire area. Made a PA to have aft Flight Attendant to bring additional water forward. I had only a limited supply. We then formed a human chain passing passenger water bottles to area. Lithium ion batteries were smoldering. Items placed in containment bag and secured in a cart in aft galley. Called Captain to advise fire was out and was advised we were landing in ZZZ. Met by fire / rescue. Taxied to gate without further incident. Firefighters boarded and removed items.Passenger had a host of batteries; chargers; vapes; liquid vape juice. There should be stricter regulations and limits imposed on vaping devices allowed on airplanes.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Attendant reported a smoke event during cruise caused by improperly configured spare Lithium Ion batteries in a passenger's carry-on backpack. Flight Attendants extinguished the fire while the Captain executed a safe diversion.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying an air tour when I simultaneously noticed a need for an increase in power accompanied by a rapid but noticeable constant vibration. Suspecting a possible issue; I elected to immediately land the helicopter off airport. A normal landing was performed. A mechanical inspection performed on site is still pending at the time of this report. Preliminary findings show a cracked valve in one of the cylinders.




Synopsis: R-44 pilot reported performing a precautionary off-airport landing after noticing vibration and power loss.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Descending on the arrival we got struck by lightning; after which the right; #2 engine failed. We [advised ATC]; ran appropriate checklist and landed. Would like to know what caused the engine to fail after getting struck by lightning.


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


Synopsis: CL600 flight crew reported their right engine shut down after they experienced a lightning strike on approach.
Date: 201304
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-18/19 Super Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I assumed Ground Control duties from an overwhelmed Developmental Controller recently certified on Ground Controller. High winds and wind shears had Runway 34 in use. Traffic volume and complexity were extremely high with the short runway and a fly-in and heavy pattern traffic. Ground Control had control of Runway 7/25 from Taxiway C to the east for crossing aircraft and vehicles. After relieving the other Controller; I established a circuitous taxi route for the fly in flights taxiing out via Taxiway K; crossing Runway 7/25; and inbound taxiing via C; crossing Runway 7/25. I worked this circuitous route for approximately 40-45 minutes. A PA18 was taxied to Runway 7 at Taxiway C for departure to alleviate workload for the Local Control. I released control of Runway 7/25 to Local Control for the departure. I then; without thinking; issued instructions for the PA18 to cross Runway 25 at Taxiway K as I had been doing non-stop since assuming the position. I was informed later that Local Control had cleared the PA32 for take off Runway 7; and he climbed out over the PA18 an estimated 100 FT-200 FT. No one; including myself; witnessed the event as all focus was on the 34 operation. I also experienced a loss of communications when my head set PTT failed during the transmission to the PA18. First; SITUATIONAL AWARENESS! Secondly; [a controller needs] heightened awareness when giving/receiving control of a runway. Visual aids were in use but not used effectively.




Synopsis: Ground Controller described a loss of runway separation event when crossing a runway with a departure taking off; the internal coordination failing between Ground Control and Local Control.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Documentation of UN3373 item; PPS not declared anywhere on paperwork.During preflight; I received NOTOC declaring 1 package of dry ice at 4 kg. Our limit per FOM is 2.5 kg unless it is a PPS shipment with UN3373. The UN3373 is not required to be on the NOTOC. The FOM states that the UN3373 will be circled on the CLR. We no longer receive a CLR since we use the ipad weight and balance. The app should show UN3373 listed; but it only shows DG (dangerous goods). Per company procedure; we were not notified of the UN3373 and the dry ice was over the limit allowed. Change in company procedure not documented.I called dispatch to inquire if they had any information about the dangerous goods being loaded and if the saw the UN3373 declaration. They were unable to help. So I called cargo operations control per the NOTOC instruction if I have questions. The company employee was able to confirm that this was a UN1845 PPS shipment w/UN3373 designation also. Realizing that this was just a procedural and not a safety problem; we finished the flight. Management was notified of the procedural problem for correction.Change the FOM procedure to require the weight and balance app to not only show the Dangerous goods on it; but also require an acknowledgement that a NOTOC was received. All types of dangerous goods should be listed on the app with the weight of each item. This would serve as an error catching system; so that the UN1845 can't be listed above 2.5kg without the additional UN3373 declaration. The other problem with the current declaration is demonstrated in the following example. 2 packages of UN1845 dry ice weighing total 5kg. This package is legal if each package is 2.5kg but if one is 4kg and the other is 1kg; it would require the UN3373 but the pilot would have no way of confirming this.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR Captain reported a communications breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch and Load Planning personnel regarding Dry Ice shipment.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UNV.Airport, PA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There is a unique combination of airspace and operations in the University Park; PA area. Bellefonte Airport is located within the Class D airspace of University Park Airport. Operators in/out of Bellefonte Airport are required to contact University Park Airport Traffic Control Tower on 128.475 for operations in Class D airspace.  Likewise; the Bellefonte Operators must use 122.8 to communicate with other operators within the Bellefonte Airport area. This requires that the operators at Bellefonte simultaneously monitor/use two separate frequencies 128.0 and 128.475 while conducting operations at Bellefonte Airport. Listening to two separate frequencies simultaneously can be complex; however; in this case; the practice allows Bellefonte pilots to maintain a situational awareness of aircraft operations at both airports. The situational awareness increases overall aviation safety in the area. However; there is a continuing practice at University Park Airport where radio transmissions are degrading safety. The UNICOM frequency being used by fueling trucks and ground service personnel is the same frequency that is being used for airborne operations. Frequency 122.8 is being used for ancillary communications to pilots; Fixed Base Operators and fueling trucks. The use of 122.8 by entities other than those aircraft operating at Bellefonte Airport is creating an unnecessary risk to pilots. Recommended Action: Immediate action by the FCC or the FAA's Flight Standards District Office should be taken to stop the use of 122.8 by ground based operators (FBOs; fuel trucks etc.) at University Park Airport. These entities should be provided with a separate UNICOM frequency which does not interfere with other local flight operations.




Synopsis: General Aviation pilot voiced concern regarding the use of frequency 122.8 by ground based operators at UNV Airport; noting the practice introduces an unnecessary level of confusion for operations into Bellefonte Airport.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing thru approximately 12;000 feet; the Cabin Altitude Warning light illuminated along with the Cabin Altitude Warning horn sounding. The First Officer (FO) was flying and I directed him to immediately descend. I notified ATC of the situation and was cleared to 9;000 feet. While descending I ran the QRC and at 9;000 feet the QRH and briefed the Flight Attendants. I determined that the pressurization could not be controlled. I made a brief PA to the Passengers that we had a pressurization issue and were returning to [departure airport]. I called Operations on Company radio to apprise them and that I was returning to land. Dispatch was notified via ACARS of my intentions to land. The aircraft landed uneventfully and was met by a Customer Service Agent to assist the passengers. I have been told by my Chief Pilot that the bleeds were left off. Make sure ALL checklist items are CHECKED. Apparently the engine bleed switches were missed by both pilots; 'what you want to see is NOT necessarily what you see!'


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported returning to departure airport after the aircraft failed to pressurize. Later; engine bleed switches were found to be in the off position.
Date: 201702
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise we received an ECAM alert that indicated we had LOW FUEL in the left outer (LO) tank. That tank showed to be full (8.2). We ran the QRH and it directed us to use our inner; center and trim fuel in the manual mode and then open the cross feed and burn from our outers until landing. We notified Maintenance Control of our issue and assumed they would forward the information to Maintenance (MX). WE WERE WRONG...THEY DID NOT. As the center and inner tanks ran empty the outer tanks began to feed. We soon noticed that the LO tank was not really showing an indication of consumption. The split between the outer tanks began to approach the balance limits. We were approximately 80 miles out and had no choice but to let the tanks continue to feed the way they were and leave the cross feed open. The split began to go out of limits as we requested direct to the final approach fix and min delay. We had to adjust the trim a couple of times; which indicated we may actually not be burning fuel out of the LO.We landed with 7.8 in the LO and 4.8 in the RO. ASSUMING MX had been told about out problem we blocked in and shut down the engines. Before MX came to talk to us they began to move fuel around in the tanks. This prevented us or MX from being able to determine if we actually had a tank that didn't feed or if we just had an indicator issue. I recommended to the captain taking the plane from me that he not take the aircraft unless he could get enough fuel in the Inner tanks to get him back without using either of the outer tanks. If the LO tank was in fact NOT burning fuel we landed with less than 5000 LBS of useable fuel. But we may never know now. It was good fortune that I added 3000 LBS of fuel to the release.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a problem with the fuel tank distribution system resulting in near out of balance limits. Flight landed without incident.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: GEN 1 Caution and R Bleed Duct Warning in flight. Precautionary return to field. No further incident. Maintenance irregularity could not be avoided.




Synopsis: During climb after takeoff; a CRJ-900 EICAS alerted GEN 1 CAUTION and R BLEED DUCT so the flight returned to the departure airport for a precautionary landing.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLS.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Haze / Smoke; 9
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was on a VFR flight plan westbound across Cascade Range at 8;500' MSL CAVU (Clear and Visibility Unlimited). As I neared the flat terrain on the western side of the Cascade Range; I could see the tops of the typical low level clouds which were forecast to be dissipating at around this time. CLS AWOS was reporting ceiling 1500' and visibility 9. I could see the edge of the cloudy area and decided to descend in a river valley to below the ceiling for the remaining 25 miles to my destination. Soon after entering below the ceiling; I could not maintain the required cloud clearance/terrain obstruction clearance. To avoid further descent; and assessing that a 180 turn was not possible due to terrain; I began a climb in the direction of the river valley. I entered IMC and broke out about 500' higher.This situation reflects poor judgment on my part and arose because of an incorrect assumption I had about what was under the cloud layer. My home base is in this area and I expected to see the usual; well-defined ceiling with good visibility underneath. This was not the case in this circumstance.I am well aware that continued VFR into IMC is a leading cause of fatal GA accidents. Yet I relied on my belief that I could continue VFR under the cloud layer. Had I not quickly initiated the climb; the result could very well have been a CFIT accident. I will no longer consider a duck under option in the future.




Synopsis: C150 pilot reported VFR in IMC and CFTT en route when he attempted to duck under the cloud cover to reach the destination airport.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
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: At the gate; just prior to pushback; a Flight Attendant came up and informed me that she had a passenger who was 'non-compliant' in regards to face mask usage.  She informed me that three flight attendants had already spoken to this passenger and he still refused to comply.  I called for a Customer Service Manager to remove the passenger.  The Manager arrived a few minutes later and the passenger was removed.Some people view face mask usage as some sort of infringement on their personal rights.  The airline has made it very clear that using a face mask is a requirement. I think the airline has done an admirable job in communicating the mask usage policy.  Gate agents; flight attendants; and the Captain all make announcements regarding this requirement.  People will always want to test the limits.  I feel removal is the right move; and sends a message that the policy will be enforced as much as possible.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported a passenger was removed due to non-compliance with face mask policy.