elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was given the paperwork for the Flight and the ramp agent told me that since their computers were down that we would use the old weight manifest and that all hazmat had been bumped.  If you look at the enclosed manifest it shows no hazmat and it also shows no freight in zone 1.  When I was getting off the airplane; I noticed a package in zone 1.  It was not secured; it was not arrows up and the zone 1 net was not closed.  It was also hazmat (dry ice).  I requested that the ramp manager take possession of the package to determine what should be done since it didn't have hazmat paperwork.  The package did have a dry ice placard and a hazmat inspection sticker. Better hazmat training for Rampers.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain is told that since the computers were down that they would use the old weight manifest and that all hazmat had been bumped. Upon arrival; a HazMat package is noticed in Zone 1. The package is not arrows up; not secured and the net is not closed.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Controls
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Twice in two weeks I've found myself attempting Battery APU starts in B737NG. Neither one of them worked. Turns out there is an Aircraft and DC [Battery] APU Start circuit in the newer model aircraft. Either one is deferrable; but none were written up or deferred at the time. Once we put [Ground] AC power on the aircraft; the APU started and ran fine. I guess my question is that most of our APU starts are with AC power; and we don't have many opportunities to 'try' the DC APU start. The DC part of the APU start could be vital [if dual engine flameouts occur.] Does Maintenance check this with any regularity? Is this DC portion failure a 'trend' we need to check? (Maybe I just got lucky with 2 recent aircraft.) Explore this as a failure trend that needs to be corrected. APU Battery start in Next Generation aircraft.

Callback: Reporter stated that 99% of the time flight crews start APUs using Ground AC Power. Unlike the Classic B737s that only have a single point APU Start circuit; the B737NGs have two separate Power circuits for starting APUs. The APU Battery Start capability becomes critical when in the air; especially if dual engine flameouts occur and electrical power for fuel pumps and air for emergency air starts are needed.Reporter stated that one of the guarantees by Boeing was that; there would be enough Battery power to start APUs.  He's not sure if the Ship's Battery is the issue; since the Battery Voltage indicated adequate Battery power was available.  But when Maintenance performed BITE Tests on the APUs; the results showed 'Battery' as a fault. The two times he recently attempted to start the APU; he had come on-board to a 'cold' aircraft. No Ground Power was hooked-up and the APU Battery DC starts failed. When Ground Power was eventually hooked-up to the aircraft; the APUs started right up. He isn't sure if his Air Carrier understands the potential safety concerns that flight crews could be exposed to; especially in flight; if APUs are consistently not starting in the DC Battery mode.



Synopsis: Pilot reports that twice in two weeks; attempted DC Battery starts of APUs had failed on B737NG aircraft. APU Start capability becomes critical in the air if a dual engine failure occurs. Maintenance BITE Tests of APUs after Battery start failures indicate 'Battery' fault. APUs start OK using Ground Power.
Date: 201202
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Address System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I] was told that there were cabin lighting problems during our briefing. But when we got on the plane the Mechanic was not just trying to fix the lighting but also the PA system and interphones. The PA and interphone were still not working at my jumpseat after the door was closed. I informed the Purser immediately but we still took off without the PA system and interphones on doors 2L/R; 3L/R and 4L/R. We lost almost 50% of PA system and interphones for 15 hour flight and nobody mentioned any other communication method regarding emergency procedures.


Second narrative: After discovering the interphone and PA were not working from several locations; when the safety demo was finished and we were still taxiing; I immediately informed the cockpit of the problem and awaited their instructions. They did not call back during our taxi or after takeoff so I assumed the problem was not a 'no-go item.'Nonetheless; after we had completed the first service I called the cockpit for confirmation. The Captain informed me that they had checked and that it was OK to proceed with the flight. He said nothing else regarding the problem.


Synopsis: Flight attendants aboard a B747-400 notified the flight crew of inoperative cabin PA and interphone handsets at several doors during taxi for takeoff. Only after takeoff and the initial food service were the flight attendants advised that the inoperative handsets were deferable and that notification occurred only because flight attendants took the initiative to call and ask.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ASE.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On the approach into ASE we were cleared for a Visual Approach with maneuvering to the west approved roughly over the last mountain on the LOC course. In order [to] ensure that we could get on the correct glideslope and stabilized far enough out the pilot flying opted to maneuver in the remaining valley area to the west of LOC course. The GPWS 'Caution Terrain' sounded twice while doing this. Aspen is a steep and difficult approach.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a Terrain Alert while maneuvering on a Visual Approach to Aspen Airport.
Date: 202008
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: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
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: Company Policy

Narrative: Passenger in seat X4 boarded wearing a face shield. I told her a face mask was required as well. She argued and said it says 'face covering.' I said; 'it's vague yes; but simply means like mask or scarf.' I told FA B and pilots. Pilots said; '...face shields alone are not okay...' [but did not enforce]. I'd suggest not using the wording 'face covering' I'd state 'mask.'




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was wearing face shield; but no face mask.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant; Other QC inspection
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My supervisor brought to my attention that I signed off on W/O XXXXXX that was attached to Aircraft X.  I signed the Inspection and RII blocks on this window modification paperwork.  I have attended RII class; but not MAX difference class so I was not qualified to sign these items off on a MAX aircraft.




Synopsis: Technician reported signing off on a work order but not being qualified to do so.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This is a serious safety concern at the intersection of runway 23 and 18L at KCLT. There is a significant hump in runway 18L as a result of the crown on runway 23. For many corporate aircraft this location happens to coincide with V1 and/or Vr. I was pilot flying on the Citation X. The pilot not flying called V1 just prior to the intersection. The airplane continued to accelerate towards Vr; but hit the hump prior to reaching Vr. As a result the airplane was launched off the hump and became airborne just before Vr. There was a very noticeable dip in the left wing as the airplane became airborne. I believe the airport and FAA need to take a serious look at finding a solution to this ongoing problem.




Synopsis: A CE-750 pilot reported the 'crown' of CLT Runway 05/23 at the intersection with Runway 18L acts as a 'launching' ramp for departing corporate aircraft causing them; in some cases; to become airborne prematurely.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While the First Officer (FO) was finalizing the weight and balance; I stepped out of the cockpit to use the Lav. The jump seater; flight attendant; and a passenger were standing in the forward galley. As I reached for the Lavatory knob I noticed there was a glaring entry of light through the main cabin door. I stepped toward the light and was able to squint enough to focus on the floor edge of the main cabin door where it stopped and revealed a drop straight down to the pavement below with no jetway in sight. I looked out the main cabin door and forward of the aircraft and saw the gate agent parking the jetway about 25 feet away from the aircraft. The ramp agent was in protest and told me that he advised the gate agent that the jetway could not be moved. I motioned at the gate agent to return the jetway and as she got closer I advised her that she cannot retract the jetway and leave until we close the main cabin door because someone will walk off the aircraft dropping straight to the pavement. We are all used to a jetway floor being attached to the aircraft and especially the crew is at risk for walking straight off the aircraft and not noticing there is no floor. I also advised that the procedure of waiting for the paperwork from the flight attendant and the flight attendant closing the main cabin door are key precursors for moving the jetway away from the aircraft. The gate agent returned just to grab the paperwork from me and then immediately started retracting the jetway again before we could close the door. I advised the flight attendant to grip the support handle firmly with one hand while reaching and closing the door with the other; as not to chance falling to the pavement.




Synopsis: A Captain reported the gate agent retracted the jetway before taking the closeout paperwork and closing the main cabin door. No jetway presence exposed the flight attendant to a potentially hurtful fall while closing the heavy door.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
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); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Air quality issue-fume event. Sour smell three times during flight. Felt dizzy and light headed when landing. And chest tightness.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a recurring 'sour smell' fumes event during flight resulting in health issues.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D SMX
ATC / advisory: Tower SMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the preflight planning stage of flight a NOTAM was discovered that restricted use of Runway 12 to 5;300 FT of usable length; although Runway 30 was still available full length. The weather was forecast to be at minimums for the approach requirements to 30 and we departed with the expectation that Runway 30 would be our only available option. Upon receiving the arrival ATIS during our descent; we decided to contact Dispatch because the ceiling was 200 FT below the MDA for Runway 30. Dispatch advised that the full length of Runway 12 was available for use and the NOTAM restricting it to 5;300 FT did not apply to us. Using Runway 12 would allow for an approach below the cloud ceiling so we thought our flight would end with an uneventful landing to Runway 12. On the final approach segment of our flight things became very confusing. This was the first time myself or the First Officer had made an approach to Runway 12 and no visual descent guidance existed for it (ILS Glide-path was out of service). Additionally; a NOTAM for non-standard runway markings was in our paperwork. Prior to breaking out of the cloud layer; SMX Tower cleared us to land Runway 12; full length. Soon afterwards we entered VMC flight conditions while descending through 900 FT MSL and spotted the runway. Thinking we had use of the full runway I established a descent rate that would place the aircraft between what appeared to be the 500 FT and 1;000 FT touchdown markers. However; this runway surface was black in color and differed from the larger portion of the runway which was a lighter gray color. A runway number was not visible on the darker section of the runway; but we both assumed it was part of the closed 1;000 FT that we were authorized to land on. Around 500 FT AGL we noticed a barricade that separated the black and gray portions of the runway and I immediately adjusted our descent rate to land beyond the barricade in a stabilized manner. The rest of the landing was uneventful.A few things could have prevented this and made things much safer. 1) SMX Tower could have warned us the black section of runway was unusable. 2) A pictorial or textural description of where to land on the runway could be included in the SMX charts. 3) NOTAM's could be more clear in nature and include the fact that a barricade is in place to mark the start of Runway 12.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports confusing NOTAM's and non-standard markings during an instrument approach and landing on Runway 12 at SMX.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Headset appeared to be inoperative with no voice; although I could hear the hot mic and fumbling with the headset. After much fumbling around downstairs; I overheard the push crew mention that he didn't want to put it too close to his mouth because he was sweating. I completely sympathize; but we have to be able to hear!Push crew then said they were ready to push; but we would have bags loaded after pushback. FO (First Officer) saw the bags sitting on a belt loader next to the airplane; I had to insist that they be loaded there rather than push and load. The three minute conversation about this was longer than it took to load the bags.Push crew left hot mic on for the entire push. This is apparently a new headset that is showing up a lot; with a manual mic switch. Unfortunately; I'm not going to listen to a jet engine running during the entire pushback - which means starting after the disconnect.After brakes set; push crew had difficulty releasing the tow bar. Marshaller came up; and due to the hot mic I could hear her say 'you need to tell them that they need to release the parking brake so you can push them back a little further.' That is a direct quote - and clearly a falsehood to get us to release the brake so they could get the tow bar off. While I inquired as to had they changed anything on the tow bar (pin or otherwise); the pin then sheared. After Maintenance came out; nobody told me on the headset that the tow bar was disconnected and bypass pin removed; they just disconnected after Maintenance told me there was no damage. When I flashed the taxi light three times; marshaller gave me the clear to taxi signal and hopped in the tug. Luckily; she kept looking and saw my repeated signals. After the lead hooked up; we got confirmation that the tow bar and bypass pin were indeed removed; I gave the 'disconnect headset' command; and everyone then drove away without another clear to taxi signal. After calling Ops; and 4-5 minutes; we got someone to come out and give us a signal.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported ground crew's non-compliance to Standard Operating Procedures during pushback.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My student and I were approaching to land [on] Runway 10R at ZZZ. We were preparing for a go-around; since the preceding aircraft did not clear the runway. Tower also instructed us to go around. I instructed my student to apply full power; turn off the carburetor heat; and to retract the flaps one at a time. We climbed for nearly 100 feet; when we noticed the propeller was feathering and ultimately stopped. I reported the engine failure to ZZZ Tower; and I told my student that I was taking the flight controls. I pitched for 60 knots; best glide; and I picked a best landing site; Taxiway J. I was unable to land on Runway 10R; due to the aircraft had not cleared the runway; and the left parallel Taxiway M had construction at the end. My student and I landed safely on Taxiway J; and we spoke with Ground. They called the flight school to get the plane towed back. Prior to departing ZZZ; I verified with my student the pre-flight inspection; and the fuel tanks were full prior to departure.




Synopsis: C152 instructor reported engine failure and landing on a taxiway due to aircraft on the runway.