elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon boarding aircraft; crew was overcome by strong smell of vomit in cabin.  Cleaners were cleaning aircraft- once they got to back galley; they indicated a passenger on the inbound flight had vomited on the carpeting between the two aft lavs; on the walls and into the aft galley.Cleaners tried in vain to clean the aircraft; altogether taking over 2 hours (and delaying the aircraft) to get the carpet cleaned and the smell reduced.  Cleaners DID NOT use proper safety tools to clean the biohazard; no gloves for most of the employees; (some did have gloves on) and even used a regular vacuum to vacuum up the absorbent material.End result; the aft carpets had to be steam cleaned which in the end reduced the smell of vomit; but greatly increased the smell of chemicals in the aft cabin.Onboard Supervisor was on hand; as well as the Chief Pilot on duty and the Ops Manager.  Everyone worked hard to find a solution but in the end we were given the impression from management that if we did not take the plane and deal with the chemical odor we would be given a direct order to do so.While I understand the operational needs of the company; the impact of having to breath a unknown cleaning chemicals as well as having to breath the odor of human vomit for the duration of a 3 hour flight out and then another 3 hour flight to return is unhealthy and presents a safety concern for our passengers and crew.


Second narrative: The floor was steam cleaned yet the smell was still strong while standing in the aft galley. FAs were informed that even though the smell remainded there was no other action to be taken and the aircraft must be taken by the scheduled FAs.


Synopsis: Passenger vomit removal from the previous flight was completed but the offensive odor remained after extensive cleaning. Management strongly suggested the crew complete the scheduled round trip or be ordered to do so with the aircraft in the current condition.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal; landing with nice touchdown and no side loads. Departed the runway at the high speed at approximately 40-45 kts. Let the aircraft slow on its own while going up the hill toward XX. Made the turn onto XX at approximately 10 kts; then held short [taxiway] for another aircraft. Made the left onto [taxiway] and continued the taxi holding short of [taxiway] for another aircraft. Taxied approximately another 20 ft. when we felt the right side suddenly drop slightly then a very rough ride then stopped immediately suspecting a flat tire (felt like hitting a large pot hole followed by a blow out in a car). Told Ground Control that we suspected a flat tire and asked if they could see anything. They said they could not. The FO (First Officer) opened his window and looked back confirming a flat. Ground Control called emergency vehicles and we set up maintenance and operations services to offload passengers and get the aircraft fixed. The landing and taxi evolution were absolutely uneventful until the second tire went flat. The landing was great; side-loads were not excessive; taxi speed was well within limits; and there was nothing to indicate a problem. Looking at the pictures that we took; I suspect some kind of internal damage from a manufacturers defect of one of the tires that finally gave way either on landing or taxi (possibly rounding a turn); which lead to the second tire taking the entire load of the truck and the brakes on that side leading to excessive heat and fuse plugs melting. The tire appears to have failed in the direction of internal tire plys. Just a guess; but I'm no tire engineer.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported two tires failed during taxi.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On descent we were speaking to TRACON. We were on vectors for the visual for 26R. TRACON called out traffic for 26L; another carrier's heavy; we advised in sight and would maintain visual. TRACON then stated; 'Roger; follow the other carrier...he's for the left; you are cleared the visual 26R'. As we proceeded inbound; at about the time we pulled abeam the other carrier; ATC blasted us and said; 'Company; what are you doing? I told you to follow the other carrier!' The Captain responded with; 'We understood he was for the left; we are for the right...how do we 'follow' to separate runways'' TRACON did not like our query...we were never told that the other carrier 'should not be passed; etc.' At that time; we received a Climb RA. We responded to RA for a short climb; followed by an uneventful landing on 26R. The other carrier also received an RA and chose to go-around. 'Company is cleared the visual 26R; the other carrier is for the left do not pass or overtake.' This is a phrase we have all heard; and complied with. The Controller upon initial check-in was clearly agitated with all four aircraft he was handling. He was very 'testy' in ALL his transmissions.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air Carrier was instructed to 'follow' traffic that was landing on a parallel runway confusing the flight crew; the reporter noting the clearance was unclear and a 'do not pass' instructions should have been issued if required by ATC.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BKL.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BKL
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Our taxi instructions from BKL Ground Control were to taxi via Golf; Alpha; cross 6R and hold short of 6L. When planning my route using the Jeppesen taxi diagram; I saw that Golf went all the way to the end of 6R; at which there was a slight dogleg across the runway to get to Alpha. On our taxi; reaching the end of Golf; we were informed that Alpha was slightly behind us; but that we could taxi onto 6R and across to Alpha. After completing the flight; I compared an older taxi chart with my newly updated chart; and there is a discrepancy. The older chart does in fact have the Alpha taxiway crossing 6R; but the newly updated chart does not depict it at all. The current NACO chart also agrees with the most current Jeppesen diagram. The airport was not busy and there were no further issues.




Synopsis: A First Officer reported a taxiway incursion at BKL airport.  Reporter stated Taxiway A is not properly charted in the current NACO and Jeppessen diagrams.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCU (Flight Control Unit)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On vectors north of airport to join ZZZZZ arrival at ZZZZZ intersection; due to weather. During descent out of approx. 20;000 ft.; ECAM F/CTRL ELAC 1 fault appeared. I remained flying pilot; First Officer ran ECAM per SOP; and [our] follow up. ELAC 1 would not reset; and the resulting loss was also one of two available servo jacks in each aileron. After discussion with First Officer regarding the resultant flight control malfunction; we decided to [request priority handling] as it was the conservative thing to do. ZZZ was the closest airport so continued there. First Officer notified ATC and company of malfunction; and I briefed the flight attendants of the situation and to treat as precautionary landing. Briefed the passengers of the situation and assured them that all systems were operating normally. Also told them there would be safety vehicles near the aircraft after landing and nothing to be alarmed about. After vectoring around the weather in the area; we accepted visual approach to Runway XX. Landed without incident and taxied to gate.Weather was about the only factor having any effect on the whole situation. Was handled calmly and per SOP. There was a previous write up in logbook for same ECAM.


Second narrative: At 20;000 ft. descending on the ZZZZZ into ZZZ we had an ELAC1 fault. The Captain was flying. I ran the ECAM per SOP; and did the follow up. The system did not come back on line. We thought because it is a flight control malfunction that we [request priority handling] and proceed to land at the destination airport at ZZZ. I notified ATC; and company while the Captain handled the FA; and customers. We were vectored around weather and proceeded to fly the visual to Runway XX. Once on the ground we proceeded to the gate and the Captain made an AML entry.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported an ELAC 1 fault on arrival resulting in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
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: EICAS/EAD/ECAM
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Dispatched with a placard; MEL XXXX; for the lower Multi Function Display Unit inoperative. Placard was authorized on the previous day. Checked and complied with the MEL before departure. Specifically; we verified that the engine indications could be manually selected to either the Captains or FOs inboard display unit and that all other display units were operative. Even though we complied with the MEL before departure; during cruise the FO and I had further discussion about the MEL verbiage and the indications that we were able to see. Specifically; we were able to see all engine indications compacted on the upper MFD but were not able to view hydraulic quantity and pressure. Earlier; we initially dismissed not seeing this as a condition of the MEL placard but we increasingly thought that this didn't make sense. Decided to send a message for Maintenance to meet the aircraft upon arrival and followed up with a radio request to Maintenance to discuss the MEL placard. Made the following Aircraft Maintenance Log entry: With current placard for lower display unit inoperative unable to view hydraulic quantity and pressure. Discussed entry with Maintenance and briefed oncoming crew.Possibly an additional unaddressed system display indication failure. If this is true; it would have been better if it was caught sooner by the Flight Crew or maintenance. MEL addresses being able to see engine indications but doesn't address system indications.


Second narrative: During the flight we noticed that the hydraulic information (pressures and quantities) was missing and could not be pulled up by pushing the SYS switch which is normally the case. That information was missing and could not be found during or after flight. Possible software issue that does not allow for hydraulic information to be displayed.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported that with the Lower Multi-Function Display Unit deferred; all engine instruments were displayed except for hydraulic quantity and pressure on the Upper Display Unit.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Working to close; we are given 2 antiseptic wipes for equipment; no wipes for work areas; ready rooms. In product sort instead of spreading people out; they are putting everybody together in a section. If anyone contracts virus it's very possible to spread.




Synopsis: Ramp agent reported working too close to others and not having sufficient antiseptic wipes.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This report is to provide information into the ongoing workload issues we are seeing. I was working day shift Desk XX this day and the amount of flights on this desk if they were not following each other AND I did not have good support around me would of been un-manageable. I am on the workload committee I/WE followed all procedures but this day the Duty Officer and Chief did not want to move any flights off my desk. Thank goodness for my fellow dispatchers they convinced the Duty Officer to move the ZZZ to ZZZ1 flight from this desk there would of been no way I could of released it at sometime around XA:30 LCL time. The flights worksheets were not balanced on MIDs for the dayshift so that is why we requested the ZZZ to ZZZ1 flight be moved right away at XB:10. I just looked at my worksheet and knew I would have issues with that flight given the fact I had 4 other long hauls to release; one of them being the ZZZ2-ZZZ3 flight and due to the amount of flights I had airborne all shift.Please see the attached screen shot from DV (Dispatch View). I am also attaching the afternoon's worksheet. My fellow co-workers and myself requested to have a couple flights moved from afternoon worksheet with no luck. I have no idea what happened after I left. If you look at Desk XY that day you will notice the workload very different. They had some flight yes; but I knew if anything happened I had backup. There was lots of turbulence all the way across the North-Pacific this morning. One of my ETOPS ALT was marginal; ZZZ4; with I was updating my flights about. One thing that was good and I want to point out is that ZZZ5-ZZZ6 flight were all following each other. That provided help and was the only way this desk could be manageable. We recommend that on the committee. Same city pairs on a desks. What would of helped if the ZZZ7-ZZZ6 flight was released on another desk and or the ZZZ3-ZZZ8 flight also moved. That would of made this desk way more manageable




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported frustration at the workload on various Desks during normal shift.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Severe weather (thunderstorms) over Key West caused numerous aircraft many miles of deviations for weather. W174C was active so all aircraft were deviating north of CANOA and MAXIM. The Supervisor advised us that all of W174 was going to be active surface to FL500. I advised the Supervisor that all my traffic was deviating north and would be in the Warning Area W174B and E. He advised he did not have a choice. The B646 corridor was blocked by severe weather tops to FL420 and all the traffic was deviating into W174B and E. I advised the Supervisor that there was a 'CAR' that required TMU to have Telcons and reroute traffic away from the weather and Active Warning Areas. I suggested to the Supervisor that traffic could be rerouted thru ZHU airspace over MINOW and be clear of weather and away from the Warning Areas. The Supervisor advised me he would tell TMU. Later I still had not been advised of any action by the Supervisor or TMU. At that time; I called Havana Center and advised them that due to weather deviations and upcoming Active Warning Areas I could no longer accept traffic over MAXIM/CANOA and the B646 corridor. I then asked Havana Center to reroute all traffic over TADPO and the G448 corridor with east deviations since W465A and B were cold. This worked for about 20 minutes until W465 also went Active. Numerous arrivals and departures were deviating for weather and spilling into the Active Warning Areas. The Supervisor then left and assigned the Area to a CIC. This operation upset many people and was unsafe. The TMU should have been proactive and reroute inbound traffic over ZHU via MINOW and away from the weather and Active Warning Areas. The TMU should have ground stopped all departures filed over TADPO; MAXIM; CANOA until the weather moved out or the Warning Areas went cold.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller described possible airspace incursions due to weather deviations and the Supervisor/TMU failures to coordinate and provide re-routes prior to the incidents.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON 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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During climb-out; received a message from Dispatch saying; '[Origin airport station] advised Dispatch at that a passenger had in their checked luggage a small lithium battery for a scooter. We have consulted with cargo load [planner] and [Customer Service Manager] and are in agreement it is OK to continue to [the destination].' FO and I discussed it and agreed to go on to [the destination]. No problems with the flight.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported Dispatch ACARS notification regarding Lithium Ion battery in a passenger checked bag.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; flaps system 1 and 2 faulted; causing flaps stuck at less than 15 degrees. Captain was pilot flying. First Officer recycled slats/flap handle to 15/0; then back to 15/15; flaps still stuck. leveled at 3;000 MSL and got delay vectors. Declared emergency completed QRH procedure and made uneventful landing. Safety was enhanced by extra fuel added by Captain to original flap panel/right fuel.


Second narrative: On approach flaps stuck less than 15 degrees with system 1 and 2 flap fault lights illuminated. Cycled slat/flap handle per phase one. Flaps remained stuck less than 15 degrees. Accomplished QRH procedure for flaps stuck less than 20 degrees at or below maximum landing weight. [We] declared emergency [with an] uneventful landing.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew experiences stuck flaps during approach at less than 15 degrees with system 1 and 2 flap fault lights illuminated. An emergency is declared; QRH procedures complied with; and an uneventful landing ensues.