elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A321
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: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying an A321; relatively new. [During a] restroom break; I went to put the oxygen mask on; hose separated from mask; massive hissing and rapid oxygen pressure loss. Managed to stuff hose back into mask and stop leak. We considered diverting...but we had 1;600 PSI left; so continued (sent heads up Dispatch). Upon arrival; as soon as Mechanic touched it; it fell apart; losing oxygen very rapidly until I assisted him in tying a knot in hose.Very worrying implications: Had I gone to use adjacent mask in decompression or smoke event; the number 1 mask would have fallen apart and First Officer and Captain would rapidly have run out of oxygen. Possible crew incapacitation and hull loss scenario here. The mask looked fine otherwise. I believe the outdated FAA regulation to don modern quick-donning masks is putting undetectable wear and tear on Eros masks (no other country requires this anymore). Stuffing them back in the box repeatedly is not what they were designed for. In addition; many of the facemasks are getting scratched to the point that they would be difficult to see through in a real event. (In hindsight had I known the state of my [mask] in flight; I could have descended to 10;000 feet and diverted; and brought walk-around oxygen to the flight deck for smoke event possibility).Undetected wear and tear on mask/hose connection is due to FAA regulation requiring quick-donning masks to be repeatedly deployed beyond their design specifications. Review of requirement to don mask when single-pilot when a modern quick-donning mask is installed. The Eros-type masks were designed to negate this old requirement; and are not sturdy enough for repeated (1000's of times per year) extraction and re-stowing.


Second narrative: I believe the outdated FAA regulation to don modern quick-donning masks is putting unnecessary wear and tear on the Eros masks; (no other country requires this anymore). Pulling the oxygen mask out; wearing it; and stowing it; during each lavatory break is causing failures of the oxygen system; as we were subject to on this flight. Also; the facemasks are getting scratched during the removing and stowing of the oxygen masks for lavatory breaks; per the FAA regulations. Today; I am less confident in my oxygen system and having the ability of seeing through my smoke mask during a smoke event.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported an in-flight failure of the Captain's Oxygen mask.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff crew experienced smoke/fumes in the cockpit. The smoke was coming from the First Officer's glare shield vent. The First Officer was performing the takeoff and the Captain took the aircraft and performed the reject. The airspeed was below 80 knots when the reject was initiated. As soon as the throttles were positioned to idle during the reject the smoke and fumes dissipated. Crew cleared the runway and ran the smoke; fire or fumes checklist. After exiting the runway and bringing the aircraft to a stop the Captain contacted the flight attendants and they reported no smoke or fumes in the cabin area. After the checklists were complete and there was no further indication of smoke or fumes; we coordinated with operations to return to the gate.


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


Synopsis: B737 crew successfully rejects takeoff below eighty knots when smoke enters cockpit through First Officer's glare shield vents.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I was driving an electric pushback tractor to assist in the dispatch of the flight. I followed normal SOP (test the brakes of the vehicle) and it seemed fine. As I got within 5 ft of the towbar I tried bringing the push back [tractor] closer to the tow bar. In doing so the pushback kept rolling towards the towbar when I eventually tried to stop it with the foot brakes. I attempted the hand brake but to no avail. At this time it had hit the connected towbar with the front already rolling over the towbar. By this time I already tried the two brakes and the emergency switch. But one of the pushback front wheels was already on top of the tow bar when it rolled over and to avert hitting the nose gear I steered it away from the plane and then finally was able to bring it to a complete stop by pulling the lever into park. I then called the lead who call the supervisor and the managers. I think because I didn't panic in such an event or I would have hit the aircraft head on. After realizing I had no control in stopping the push back; [I] steered it away from the aircraft; trying to avoid any further damages. I think those electric tractors are not suitable for pushback operations since they are not always reliable in stopping.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported an electric pushback tractor's brakes failed as he approached the towbar. The tractor ran over the towbar; but the driver steered away from the aircraft then stopped by pulling the lever into park.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb; Initial Approach; Landing; Parked; Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Aircraft X there were passengers that had masks on when they boarded but then immediately took their masks off and sipped on water bottles the whole flight and didn't wear their mask.  I couldn't see their faces.  I noticed during service that they were drinking their water; so I didn't say anything but after we secured the cabin for landing (we had to do it early because the Captain was anticipating turbulence); Flight Attendant Y called me and told me that they didn't have their masks on and that one of the passengers moved from their original seat forward to sit with his friend and we didn't catch it until it was close to landing and it wouldn't have been safe for us to get out of our seats to talk to him and I didn't want him to get up and move back to his original seat either for safety reasons. What do you suggest is the proper way to handle people that won't wear their mask and act like they're drinking water the whole flight?




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported passengers did not comply with the face mask policy during flight.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LUF.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use A-231
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was operating my drone under part 107 during an aerial photography mission. On initial setup I checked the FAA B4UFLY app and noticed that the area I was currently in was restricted. Once I checked under the reasons why it informed me that it was due to Alert Area A-231. I then checked my terminal area chart on Foreflight to see what the restrictions were for A-231 and found out that it was from 500 AGL to 6500 MSL. The operation I intended to perform was only going to be up to 100 AGL and I quickly glanced to make sure I was not in conflict with any other airspace and under the B shelf. Having done most of my flight training in Phoenix I felt that I was certain that it was acceptable to operate my drone. After no conflicts and completing the flight; then proceeded to another property located a street over. Again I was prompted that flight was restricted due to A-231; again I continued to proceed cautiously. After performing 3 operations all within the same area I stopped for the day. Later that evening it bothered me that I didn't understand why I was getting a restricted message and I looked at the terminal chart once again. I then noticed that next to the A-231 boundary there is an SATR (Special Air Traffic Rules) starting at the surface and up to 4000. The SATR states that all aircraft need to establish two-way communication with and maintain communication with LUKE APP while operating in the airspace. It is then; that I realized that I may have been in conflict with this SATR and right on the border of the defining limits. My previous flight experience in the area lead me into a trap of not checking the airspace as closely as I should have because the SATR is new since I last operated flights in the area. Going further; I need to pay extra caution to all available information including the B4UFLY app to avoid any further conflicts.




Synopsis: A UAS pilot operating near LUF realized he was flying in Alert Area A-231; but thought it was legal below 500 feet. He later discovered he may have been operating in the Special Air Traffic Rules Area within A-231 which requires prior communication with ATC.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were taking off from 26L out of Atlanta. At 600 feet CA called for the Auto Pilot on. It was engaged and we started flying the departure. We made the turn towards MPASS. Tower called and asked if we were direct MPASS and from all of our indications in the flight deck; we were. Later Departure asked us the same thing; if we were direct MPASS. We told him yes we were; every indication from our flight instruments indicated we were direct MPASS. Departure came back and told us we were a little north of course. We responded with we were on the departure and going direct to MPASS; we had no indications saying otherwise. Departure told us later that they were doing some GPS testing and that might be the cause of the northerly course. Captain had put the flight plan into the FMS. We did a clearance verification procedure that verified our flight plan. Everything looked normal and correct. I personally went through the legs page and verified each leg from the departure and afterwards to our destination. Everything was correct. Taxing down to the runway we did our Before Takeoff checklist which we verified for the second time that we were doing the correct departure with the first fix MPASS. Three times we verified our route and first fix. I honestly think it had something to do with GPS testing that Departure later told us they were doing.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported that a course disparity between ATC and cockpit indications while departing ATL was apparently due to GPS testing.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FADEC / TCC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Holding short Runway XXR [at] ZZZ we received an ECAM 'ENG 1 FADEC A FAULT.' Upon informing tower of the need to examine a fault; tower cleared us to cross [Runway] XXR and hold short of XXR on the eastern side. Coordinating with Maintenance Control a circuit breaker reset failed to resolve the ECAM.  Maintenance informed me this was a 'no-go' ECAM. We informed tower we needed to return to a gate; tower then cleared us to taxi onto XXR and exit taxiway 1. We subsequently taxied to gate XX.This was an unfortunate mechanical failure. This item was a repeat item and had been examined by maintenance technicians; cleared and 'signed-off' as recently as the previous flight.This was an unfortunate mechanical failure but as a repeat item the only suggestion is possibly more scrutiny on previous occasions.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a gate return due to an engine 1 FADEC ECAM message that was a repeat discrepancy.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sundowner 23
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed ZZZ at XA:10 with the intention of flying to nearby ZZZ1 for takeoff and landing practice. I made a normal takeoff and climb remaining under the ZZZ2 Class B airspace; but within the Class C veil; and ultimately climbed to 3000 feet MSL to clear the mountain ridge. After clearing the ridge; I decided to do some training maneuvers at altitude and began some clearing turns. At that time; I noticed my Garmin 430W; my primary nav/com and GPS receiver; had gone dark. Shortly after that; my second nav/com went dark. The ammeter showed a discharge. I tried to reset the alternator; but there was no effect. At that time; I elected to divert to ZZZ3; an uncontrolled airport nearby. My transponder was apparently still squawking on the ZZZ4 code; and I had ADS-B In traffic displayed on my iPad until I was within five miles of ZZZ3; and the transponder went dark as well. I lost my ADS-B traffic display on the iPad as a result; but was able to discern the runway in use from the traffic in the pattern. I entered a wide downwind leg for Runway XX; and made a normal approach and landing on Runway XX at approximately XA:35. There were no traffic conflicts at any time during the flight. Our maintenance shop at ZZZ3 confirmed the alternator had failed and it was replaced over the next few days.To the best of my knowledge; my transponder was squawking Modes A and C and ADS-B Out through the entire flight while in the Mode C veil. I lost power to the transponder just before entering the traffic pattern at ZZZ3.




Synopsis: BE-23 pilot reported that an alternator failure caused the loss of most of the aircraft's communication and navigation systems in-flight.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P31.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E P31
ATC / advisory: TRACON P31
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Maneuvering at 1700' at the beach practice area SE of PNS / NUN; Pensacola approach controller issued a traffic alert 1nm to the north of my position at 1700'. I replied with 'Negativate contact call sign' and nothing else was mentioned. I climbed from 1700' to 2100'; Traffic was spotted at my 11:30 no more than 100' above (Likely at 2200'). Controller was prompted with the near miss and claimed I hadn't reply to her traffic advisory.  The other aircraft was a PA-28 and they didn't have us in sight. Classic high wing cessna below and low wing piper above; and a lack of the controller's input regarding both aircraft's decision to climb in order to avoid each other.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reports a near miss southeast of PNS while talking to TRACON.  C172 pilot; while looking for traffic; climbs to 2100 FT to avoid the PA28 traffic Controller advised was at 1700 FT.  Aircraft miss each other by an estimated 100 FT.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We landed [Runway] 26R; and taxied FD NE to hold short [Runway] 26L. A small airplane; a single-engine Piper; was also holding short of [Runway]  26L at NE. As we approached the hold short line at a taxi speed of 2-3 kt; the First Officer asked me if I could see the small airplane ahead of us. We were less than 50 feet away; and I was just starting to see it; but it almost completely blended into the taxiway and surrounding lights. We were configured per Company SOP regarding ground movement; including taxi light on. We were not advised by the Tower Controller of any ground traffic ahead of us. I attached some images that were taken when we were stopped approximately 50 feet away from the small airplane ahead of us.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported taxiing to within 50 feet of a small aircraft while approaching a runway hold line during taxi to parking.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I [was in] a slow climb when I noticed my right engine running roughly and fluctuations in the fuel pressure. I began to become preoccupied with babying the engine; enriching the mixture; turning on the boost pump; reducing power; etc. I was distracted during this time and may have inadvertently made an incursion while climbing into the floor of Class B airspace in the next two sectors; 5;000 MSL and 6;000 MSL respectively. I leveled off at 6;500 MSL after clearing all shelves of Class B airspace and realized I had not been aware of my altitudes at those points. Upon arriving at [destination] my right engine failed completely. The mechanic confirmed a broken off intake fitting to the fuel pump and fuel was leaking out extensively.




Synopsis: A BE55 pilot became distracted dealing with engine problems which was a factor in a Class B intrusion. The engine failed completely on arrival at destination.