elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During cruise at FL 230; we encountered light chop which suddenly became severe turbulence. We were unable to hold altitude and advised ATC. We received a TA and a flight below us received a RA. Fluctuation of airspeed and altitude. Reported to ATC; got a lower altitude.I don't feel like there is anything else I could have done to avoid this.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported encountering severe turbulence and deviating from assigned altitude; along with a Traffic Advisory on another aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was descending to cross KNOLE at 170 on the WAATS5 arrival within the confines of the south UTTR [Utah Testing and Training Range]. The south UTTR was displayed active 100 and below and the weather message agreed. Clover Controller called and asked if we knew the airspace was active 999 and below? The 40 Controller asked if it was currently active and Clover confirmed it had been active for a while. Clover reluctantly stated; 'Well; I guess point out approved.' When this was brought to management's attention; it was blown off. I doubt a report was filed on this event due to the ZLC management double standard and constant sweeping under the rug. Every time I have seen the south UTTR active 999 and below it is due to live missile launches. Loss of life could have occurred due to this oversight. Every person that handles airspace needs some sort of recurrent training on a consistent basis. The ball is dropped nearly every day. Clearly what we are doing is not working. This was not the only airspace that was entered incorrectly at the time; or range was active but not displayed.




Synopsis: ZLC Center Controller reported an airspace violation due to incorrect display showing times and altitude for a restricted area.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: Other Flight school
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tail Rotor
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Started day at XA:00 am. Already suffering from chronic fatigue (interrupted sleep from baby waking up in the middle of the night and returning late flight from ZZZ1 two days earlier; I started to assist in a 100-Hour Inspection for a Robinson R22 Beta II helicopter. There were multiple discrepancies found by Lead Mechanic; including flight control rod end bearings needing replacement and re-shimming of Swashplate fork assemblies. The environment when working on Swashplate flight controls was well lit due to opened hangar doors. However; when working on Tail Rotor Control rod end; the hangar was partially closed and eventually closed; which decrease the amount of light. The lighting inside the hangar was poor; causing me to strain my eyes and use a flashlight. While working on the Tail Rotor Flight Controls; I was also distracted while I helped the Lead Mechanic working on the same helicopter as well as another Mechanic working in the same hangar on another helicopter. With the attention taken away and fatigued; there was a lack of attention to detail and oversight. The Swashplate flight controls were all checked but not the Tail Rotor Pedal Control rod end push-pull tube. This was discovered the following day during a pre-flight. The Chief Pilot and Director of Maintenance (DOM) found the Tail Rotor rod end jam nut not tightened and torqued and heater blower hose and wire not attached. To correct this situation; I should have been more forceful to have another mechanic or even a pilot check my work to verify all the work was done properly and completely. Furthermore; I should have let other mechanics know that I was chronically fatigue and that an increased level of oversight; especially with flight controls; should have taken place. Chronic fatigue with acute fatigue accumulating from the 14-hour work day; with poor lighting conditions contributed to the improper tightening and torque procedures for the Tail Rotor Pedal Control rod end jam nut.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) describes how chronic and acute fatigue; poor hangar lighting and 12 to 14-hour work shifts contributed to improper tightening and torque procedures for the Tail Rotor Pedal Push-Pull Tube Control rod end jam nut on a Robinson R22 Beta helicopter.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MHLM.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center MHTG
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On a 5 mile final approach to runway 22 at MHLM and at 3000 feet MSL; I noticed Aircraft Y also joining final to the same runway from the opposite side and descending to 4000 feet. Aircraft Y joined approximately 50 to 100 yards in front of us to the same runway. Two calls to ATC asking what was going on with the traffic went unanswered. At 3000 feet in mountainous terrain we had very few options if the Aircraft Y continued to descend on final. Eventually Aircraft Y executed a 360 degree turn to the right and a descent to join final behind us. They landed shortly after we cleared the runway. Never seen anything like this in 30 years. Very disconcerting.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain on approach; at 3000 feet; to Runway 22 at MHLM noticed another aircraft join final directly above at 4000 feet. Inquires to ATC went unanswered but eventually the aircraft turned out bound and rejoined final behind them.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon takeoff; the cabin started to smell like dirty gym socks causing the passengers and the entire crew [to become] light headed and nauseated due to smell. As you go to the aft of the aircraft; the smell was stronger. During descent; the smell was getting stronger. We notified the flight deck in regards to the incident and the aircraft landed without incident and parked at the gate.


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


Synopsis: Two EMB-175 flight attendants reported cabin crew and passengers experienced light-headedness and nausea symptoms due to cabin air smell of dirty socks.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During cruise; passenger in seat 1A told flight attendant that she (passenger) had not been given the removable lithium ion battery from her mobility device when she boarded the aircraft. Flight attendant reported seeing battery removed from device while device was on jet bridge in ZZZ. After consulting the FOM we confirmed that removable lithium ion batteries are supposed to be carried in the passenger compartment with the passenger. We sent an ACARS message to Dispatch and followed up with a radio-phone patch via ARINC. Dispatch reported that ZZZ ramp crew were no longer on duty and could neither confirm or deny that the removable battery was in the cargo compartment. After consulting Dispatch; I decided to continue based on report that battery was removed from device. After parking; I went down to the ramp and observed mobility device and battery pack being carried from aircraft to jet bridge.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported communication breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch regarding incorrect information regarding the removal of mobility device Lithium Ion battery prior to departure.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were operating with PACK 1 MEL'd. As a result; the heat in the cockpit became overwhelming and reached temperatures of 41 degrees C (106 degrees F). We leveled off at 9;000 FT and briefly were distracted as a result of the extreme temperature and accelerated to approximately 272 KTS. We immediately recognized the overspeed and corrected back to 250 KTS. We messaged Dispatch with the heat issue and recommended the aircraft be taken out of service until the PACK was fixed...we received the response; 'how are the passengers; are they comfy.' We continued the flight without incident. On the ground; I contacted Maintenance Control to possibly coordinate a proactive aircraft swap for the next crew. I informed them that MEL's such as these should not be allowed in these types of conditions as the heat became unbearable. Again; MEL'd PACKS should not be acceptable this time of year in extreme heat situations.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reports being dispatched with an inoperative number one pack and experiencing cockpit temperatures up to 41 degrees C. During level off at 9;000 FT; airspeed is allowed to accelerate above 250 KTS.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting Operational Experience on a new upgrade student on his first day an unstable approach was executed. ATC left him a little high and then cleared us for a visual approach. The upgrade student brought out spoilers to full without power being back at idle (engines were spooled into mid 50% N1). The airplane was configured to flaps 8; 20 then gear down. Autopilot was disconnected while on a 7 mile modified base to final. The aircraft was on glideslope; but the upgrade student was too fast to bring flaps out to 30. The airplane came through 1;000 AGL at flaps 20 gear down and full spoiler deployed. At this point I told him he was not slowing because his power was not at idle and he was essentially powering through his spoilers. Also I was expecting him to initiate a go around due to the unstable approach. Power went to idle and flaps 30 and 45 were called for and configured. I did not call for the go around because I wanted my upgrade student to realize that we were unstable inside a 1;000 AGL and make the call to go miss himself.Instead; the approach was continued with the airplane being fully configured on speed and stable by around 500-600 AGL. Landing was standard and satisfactory. Upon reaching the gate I debriefed him on the event and told him that inexperienced First Officers may not make the call to go around when the Captain is pilot flying in an unstable approach event. He was told that in the future in that situation a go around must be performed. I used it as a learning tool and also to discuss the safety program.Cause: unstable approach; not fully configured; over flap 45 speed and with spoilers out at 1;000 AGL.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Check Captain reported the First Officer continued an unstable approach to a landing contrary to company policy.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was climbing to 35;000 feet out of 26;000 feet saw traffic at 32;000 feet. Entered interim assigned altitude FL310 in flight data tag and combined up sectors but didn't follow through. I was training and we discussed it. The trainee said she would stop the flight; entered the interim altitude assigned FL310 and I didn't make sure she gave Aircraft X the new altitude. By the time we combined sectors and went back to controlling the trainee fell behind with a couple other clearances and didn't have time to turn Aircraft X once conflict alert went off.


Second narrative: After being cleared to 35;000 feet; we had a traffic alert passing 31;500 feet for Aircraft Y at 32;000 feet 10 miles ahead. We called ATC and they turned us 30 degrees right. ATC claimed that our cleared altitude was 31;000 feet even though we verified and read back 35;000 feet. We never got closer than 7 miles from traffic.


Synopsis: ZHU Center Controller Instructor and a flight crew reported that a Trainee Controller climbed the flight crew from 26;000 feet to 35;000 feet with conflicting converging traffic at 32;000 feet.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Hydraulics
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Following hand off maintenance discussion with previous crew; aircraft was flown for six days of rotation with MEL for deferred hydraulic quantity indicator. Was informed by maintenance on last day that the deferral may not have been in keeping with the intent of the MEL. Conferred with maintenance and chief pilot office; CAS (Crew Alerting System) indications in CYAN for related faults in flaps; gear; and spoilers not permitted. Aircraft grounded for repairs.Better understanding of restrictions when operating under MEL authorization and the need for consistent management of maintenance authorized deferrals under MEL authorization. Better communications protocols for communicating between the flight crews and maintenance.




Synopsis: Hydraulic Quantity Indicator was deferred incorrectly because the Crew Alerting System indicated in CYAN faults for flaps; gear; and spoilers.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Two mechanics and one supervisor were completing a routine on Aircraft X for RON (Remain Overnight). When first shift arrived; five additional mechanics and another supervisor; it was noted that a dual tire change was required of the Main Wheel Assembly. Four mechanics went to complete the tire change and return the aircraft back to service.While looking up references for the tire change; I noticed that the jacking procedures outline different jacks than what we have available. The recommended axle jacks are GSE 034 (for Main Landing Gear) and GSE 045 (for Nose Landing Gear) in ERJ175 Aircraft Maintenance Manual. The jacks we are using are ERJ145 GSE 003 with two or three 2' blocks of steel to compensate for height differences. The mechanics from ZZZ mentioned that they were using the same process of ERJ145 jacks + metal stilts. I strongly recommend ensuring that the proper jacking equipment is used for the aircraft and proper Aircraft Maintenance Manual procedures are followed.




Synopsis: Maintenance technician reported that during a landing gear tire change; the aircraft was hoisted using incorrect jacks; resulting in a safety risk.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was conducting flight training in C-152 with a primary student; working specifically in the pattern.Runway 24 was in use. Conditions were VMC; with a steady wind out of the west.After my student and I completed a touch and go in the left traffic pattern; Tower requested that we offset our climb by 20 degrees to the left to accommodate a much faster C130 also working in the pattern.I heard the engine pitch decrease and advised my student to reapply full power. I then checked the throttle setting and found it to be at the maximum setting. The tachometer indicated only 1900 RPM. I applied carb heat with no alteration of RPM or engine pitch. The engine was sputtering as if wanting to shut down. We were barely climbing. I took over the aircraft and turned downwind; remaining close to the airport; in case the engine failed. The engine continued to sputter. Not certain if the engine would continue operating; I advised Tower Control that I was experiencing engine difficulties. When asked of my intentions; I decided that closed runway XX offered the best chance to land safely; towards midfield. Tower redirected traffic so that I could make a safe approach and landing.The engine never shut off; and I was able to taxi the aircraft to the ramp without further incident.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot took the controls of their C-152 from his student went the engine began to run rough and at reduced power during a climbout from a touch and go.  They advised the Tower of the power loss and landed safely on a closed runway.