elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the arrival sectors; LUCKE; MULRR; BINNS; for Dulles airport. During the afternoon arrival bank; multiple international air carriers were given descents on the HYPER7 and MAPEL2 arrivals. These aircraft were given descend via clearances for their respective runways. For this example; Aircraft X was told to descend via the MAPEL2 arrival for Runway 19C. The aircraft complied with all crossing altitudes and speeds; but once the aircraft reached waypoint COVUR; the aircraft joined the localizer (as they were instructed to do); and then also descended on the glide slope. There is a major safety issue with this! There cannot be any margin for error for this problem to keep occurring. If another aircraft is crossing below Aircraft X at 060; a major collision could occur causing many innocent people their lives. Not only is this a potential issue; but we're not even factoring in wake turbulence. What if another aircraft catches the wake of Aircraft X due to this descent? The issues are clearly present. Fix it! We have; over the last 3 years; designed brand new STARs and approaches into IAD that creates a much safer and efficient environment keeping everyone on course and happy. These designs also allow IAD to begin utilizing TRIPs which is safer and less workload on feeders. We have everything designed and ready to go just awaiting final meeting for implementation process to begin and not sure what the holdup is.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported aircraft incorrectly starting descent on ILS which creates a conflict and wake turbulence error.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft had one MEL 49-10 inoperative APU. Normal operations with assisted ground air start after starting engine #1 while still at gate; configured aircraft for taxi. Turning both packs on and opening the cross bleed; there was a very noticeable smell and odor. It was a dirty; sharp; acrid; smell in the cockpit. I called the First Flight Attendant; she smelled an odor and said the passengers were complaining about the smell too. I switched off the bleeds and packs and called the gate back to the aircraft. We deplaned all the passengers and I entered a discrepancy in the aircraft log for smell and odor filling out the additional maintenance work sheet. While waiting with the crew for operational decisions to be made. The flight attendants all had complained of headaches and dizziness. The First Officer said he had a headache; I had no symptoms. The flight was canceled and my crew all deadheaded to the crew base. The flight attendants went to the company clinic. Pilots were released and went home.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the crew assembled in the airport lounge but that EMS was not called at that time. The flight attendants did go the Company clinic after the deadhead flight which was about three hours after the actual event. The Reporter did not know the outcome of the flight attendants' clinic visit. He did smell the odor but had no ill effects. The odor was difficult to describe but the term 'dirty socks' would be appropriate. This aircraft had the APU MEL'ed because the same smell was detected by the previous crew resulting in the flight cancellation. An APU malfunction was suspected.



Synopsis: The crew of an A320 with the APU MEL'ed started engines at the gate; turned the bleeds and packs ON and immediately the aircraft filled with a dirty; acrid smell which made some crew members ill and caused the flight to be canceled.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While acting as Pilot in Command we arrived from ZZZZ for the purpose of clearing customs. After the crew cleared customs and proceeded to have the luggage screened a customs officer informed me that one of the passengers did not have her passport in her possession. The customs officer also informed me that as P.I.C. of the aircraft I am subject to a $5000.00 fine for bringing an undocumented passenger into the country. I did not verify that the passenger had her passport in her possession before departing ZZZZ as she is a company employee who travels with us on a regular basis. In the future I will personally check all passenger passports before departure to comply with U.S. Customs regulations.


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


Synopsis: A corporate flight crew arrived back into the United States with a company employee on board. The Customs Officer threatened to fine the Captain because the employee on his aircraft did not have a passport and was undocumented.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AUN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G AUN
ATC / advisory: CTAF AUN
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Incident site is AUN.  Two aircraft in pattern making extensive position reports; speaking in a fast clipped manner. Three other aircraft approaching airport making short; to the point initial reports. I am on run up pad for [Runway] 25 monitoring radio report. Hear someone say 'base'. I continue with my pre-takeoff check. Checklist completed; I check for traffic on base and final (base leg is partially obscured by a hill) and runway traffic. None. I broadcast my intentions and taxi from run up pad to limit lines at taxi way/runway junction heading easterly to check for traffic on base or final. None. Pull out onto and line up on runway; check for aircraft; animals etc.; on runway. With a clear runway; I apply power and make a normal takeoff. Two thirds down and about 300 feet above the runway I start a left noise abatement turn and spot a helicopter perpendicular to the runway centerline exiting from the runway to the taxiway.I never saw the helicopter until then!




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter during initial climb from AUN airport. Pilot stated they checked for traffic before departing but did not see the helicopter.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My brother and I had lunch together and I asked him if he wanted to go look at the new wind turbines and the above-flood-stage Lake. He did so we maneuvered in the area of my home base for about 45 minutes and on approach to the airport in the pattern my gear down green light did not come on. I continued in the pattern trying to troubleshoot and get the gear down but did a go around and at the end of the runway on ascent I smelled an electrical burn for a few minutes and then the smell was gone. I moved out away from the airport and maneuvered checking circuit breakers and trying to see in my wing mirror if the gear was down. The best I could tell it was not fully locked in place so I made the decision to fly to a nearby [airport] where they have a tower and emergency equipment. As I neared the airport I contacted Approach and advised them of the emergency situation. As I continued I began to lose electrical to my Garmin 430; # 2 radio; fuel scan; and transponder intermittently. I was able to maintain pretty good communication with ATC and they gave me full cooperation and were very helpful. They directed me to the runway for a tower fly buy. They informed me that my gear was down but not completely. When I got to the end of the runway and started to ascend to pattern altitude; my green gear down light came on. I immediately informed ATC I was coming around to land. On my way around the pattern I changed my mind and on final informed them I was going back to my home airport to land. ATC asked if I was sure and I was. They also informed me that it looked like my gear was fully down. Shortly after departing the area all of my electrical came back and stayed steady. With Flight Following I continued for a safe smooth landing!




Synopsis: A PA-24-260 pilot reported his landing gear would not fully extend and an electrical odor developed. After troubleshooting and preparing for a diversionary landing; the gear became safe so he returned to his home airport for a normal landing.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Icing; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: North of CHS we encountered severe-extreme turbulence at an altitude of FL400. We accumulated rime ice and we had a total altitude loss of 2;500-2;700 feet until we fully recovered the aircraft from the turbulent weather and landed. Crew and passengers were ok and the aircraft went under inspection to make sure everything is ok.




Synopsis: LR60 First Officer reports encountering severe turbulence at FL400 which resulted in an altitude loss of over 2;500 FT before control is regained.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We departed ZZZ and climbed to 8;000 feet. Five minutes into cruise flight; we received a LH Engine Fire CASS message. I immediately conducted the red box memory items; shut down and secured the affected left engine. Co-Pilot advised ATC and requested to return back to ZZZ. The aircraft was met by fire and first responders. The passengers were deplaned on the ramp after firefighters confirmed the LH was not on fire. Everyone was deplaned without incident.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft pilot reported a LH Engine Fire CASS message which resulted in an engine shutdown and a return flight to departure airport.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was providing training on Ground 1 when Aircraft X exited Runway 25R and the trainee instructed them to taxi via C; N; north route. The Aircraft X pilot read back the instruction correctly. A minute later; I heard the OS (Operational Supervisor) advise us that Aircraft X taxied up L and not N which we; the training team; had not noticed. (Background: Taxiway K & L used to be the north route; but those are now a ramp area controlled by the City of LA for pushback from the international terminal. Taxiway N is now the north route.) This situation began to present itself several months ago when the taxiway routes first changed from L & K to N & P. It does not seem to happen as often; but I've now noticed four different scenarios in the last week (two last weekday; and two this same weekday.) It still seems to be a possibly systemic problem. In addition to Aircraft X; while the OS was telling me and the trainee that our 'scan needs to be better' to prevent this situation; Aircraft Y was under tow to Gate X and began to turn on K instead of L. (Per the LOA with the city; all arrivals to the ramp must enter via L & hold short of K1.) I immediately instructed Aircraft Y to stop; called the Ramp Tower to coordinate any potential traffic conflicts; then allowed the Aircraft Y reposition to continue. I'd recommend additional signage; a change to the charts; or added emphasis in the text of the 'north route' that emboldens how N is now the north route; not K or L. Or all of the above. The above recommendations would help alleviate the issue from the IFR/pilot side. Regarding the repositions/tows: the City of LA should disseminate refresher training to every airline that repositions aircraft on the LAX airfield. This training should be mandatory for any reposition operator and clearly explain the new procedures for the ramp. The response from Aircraft Y for why they turned on K instead of L was that they 'temporarily lost communication with their tow driver.' This response is unacceptable. Unless specifically instructed; no revenue flight or reposition is ever to enter the ramp via K.




Synopsis: LAX Ground Controller reported issues relating to the changing of a specified taxi route and flight crews not following the new routes.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During off-load station personnel notified me that we had Li-metal batteries in the cargo. I had no NOTOC for this flight.




Synopsis: MD-83 Captain reported he was not properly notified of a shipment of Li-metal batteries on his flight.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approach cleared us for the visual approach to Runway XXL. The clearance was; 'Proceed direct [Final Approach Fix]'; cleared for the visual Runway XXL.' We inserted 'Direct [FAF]' into the box and verified NAV. Autopilot-1 and 'APPR' modes were selected to intercept the LOC and GS at [FAF]. We were at 7;000 FT; the GS intercept altitude for [FAF]. We were approximately 3-4 miles outside of [FAF] and east of centerline for XXL. As we proceeded; still in NAV mode; the airplane remained slightly left (east) of an actual direct path to [FAF]. Both pilots were watching outside the aircraft. We were still tracking towards XXL; but unknowingly not tracking to [FAF] anymore. Tower asked us to verify we were landing XXL. We acknowledged that we were. It was at this point we saw we were going to intercept the XXL centerline inside of [FAF] and not at [FAF]. We saw that the aircraft was still in NAV mode; yet the aircraft was clearly about a mile or so east of the course that would've taken us to [FAF]. The autopilot was disengaged and we landed with no incident on XXL. The only abnormality to this was that the aircraft wasn't doing what the box was saying it was doing. And we intercepted the LOC inside of [FAF] instead of at [FAF] as we were told to do by ATC.Suggest better monitoring of the automation.


Second narrative: We as a crew assumed the automation was doing what it was suppose to be doing. We looked as if we were tracking to the airport; not fully aware we were tracking inside [the FAF]; not to [the FAF]. Being that we were cleared direct [FAF] 15 miles away and the aircraft was confirmed to do this; we did not think the track was drifting off course. I have never seen this happen; but I will be more aware even in visual conditions.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew; cleared to proceed direct to the Final Approach Fix for a visual approach; entered the fix into the FMS; but failed to notice that the aircraft was tracking left of course until advised by the Local Controller.