elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution Ducting; Clamps; Connectors
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In my case [on two separate incidents] the solution [the company] applied to an oily fumes event was to address the source of the oil leak; then change the cabin ozone filters. From what I can tell; no effort was made in either case to clean the ducts through what Airbus calls a 'pack burn.'I attended [an industry safety forum] and the manufacturer of pack filters was there. He said the original filter is not designed to filter out oily fumes. They have a version available that does that; same part number; no STC required; that contains a carbon filter element.So what [the company] is doing; then; is temporarily covering up the oil fumes until it saturates & overcomes the new filters. I believe this may have; in part; contributed to fume events I had on the ground; at the gate.I am not completely sure about the oil-saturated filter theory because one of them also involved over-servicing of the APU oil. But in all three cases; heavy rain immediately preceded the fume event. I believe in some cases; oil was already in the packs & filters; but in 'nooks and crannies' and was released when the air density became much heavier almost immediately with the advent of the heavy rain.Anyway; I am concerned that due to lack of cleaning ('pack burns'); we are continuing to subject crews and passengers to continuous low-doses of oil fumes (known carcinogen); and then also large doses during fume events.

Callback: The reporter stated that there is a concern for his health that flying an aircraft after oil smell has been reported and repaired that the ducts still have residual oil and the fumes are still present. The reporter stated he has no way of knowing what kind of repairs Maintenance accomplished to resolve the issue or if a 'burnout' of the ducts was accomplished to burn all the oil out. The reporter also stated; too often the source of the oil smell is deferred; ('ie; APU over serviced') but the odor remains. The reporter added he would like more information of any maintenance action that has taken place and would be happy to take a delay in order to ensure all the proper steps have been taken to resolve the issue of the oil smell.



Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that after an oil smell in the cabin report; there was no effort to clean the pneumatic ducts.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Containers] of frozen fish with 3x9 kg dry ice received from [Flight XXXX]. None of the boxes were labeled with CLASS 9 and or DRY ICE or anything like that. We checked the AWB [Airway Bill]; showing dry ice shipment; but without any dry ice check sheet. Has this shipment traveled without any DGR [Dangerous Goods] check?




Synopsis: Ground Personnel reported dangerous goods cargo arrived without required documentation or required hazmat label.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out; we got an E-1 fire bell; EICAS; and red handle. We verified that all three were present and proceeded to run memory items. When we retarded the thrust lever the messages and bell and light all went out. I determined that we should continue as if it were a fire so I declared an emergency and asked to go back to [departure airport]. We ran [the procedure] and returned on one engine. Before returning I asked the First Officer if he felt comfortable flying single engine and he did; so I managed ATC; PA; flight attendant; and checklists. The First Officer lost some altitude but that was after we declared an emergency and the area was cleared.After we landed I pulled off the runway; had the fire crew visually inspect the aircraft and check with a heat gun to verify there was no presence of fire. After I determined it was safe I proceeded to the gate and let the passengers off. I wrote up the indications as well as an overweight landing. We flew the plane back to [a different station] and the same thing happened but only briefly. I wrote it up [again]. Maintenance changed a module in the detection system [after the first occurrence] and I don't know what they did to it [after the second occurrence]. Suggestions for this type of emergency; the checklist was WAY too long. For fire close to departing airport I would like to see a quick reference guide for runway distance and V speeds instead of having to do math on an already heavy workload.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain reported experiencing a fire warning on #1 engine. They ran the procedure; shut down the engine; declared an emergency; and returned to departure airport where a module in the detection system was changed. Same problem occurred on the next leg.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EGE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were going into EGE; weather was good with bases approximately 15000 feet. As we approached RLG we were to maintain 13900 feet passing RLG and cleared the LDA Rwy 25. We were IMC until approximately 15000; we broke out and were VMC as we neared RLG. Crossing RLG we were VMC with ground contact. We descended over 300 feet below the MEA; realized it and came back up to MEA before VOAXA the next waypoint.What happened? We had briefed the high terrain during our cruise and reviewed the arrival and approach. I think for some reason; the terminology of the clearance and going into VMC; seeing the terrain; made me think the next section MEA after RLG was below 13900 feet. I looked at the plan view of the approach plate and missed seeing VOAXA; I then looked at the profile view and saw 12900 feet for AGULA; the waypoint after VOAXA. I told the Pilot Flying our next altitude was 12900 feet; we descended but realized/double checked that was incorrect and climbed back up. Center did not mention anything or that they noticed our deviation and told us to switch to tower approaching AGULA. The rest of the approach was normal.It was my error; I'd like to think I am a very careful and safe pilot but this did happen and I've been going over it again and again. I will be more vigilant but I also think the chart is cluttered at VOAXA. I know every waypoint can't go into the profile view but I think if VOAXA had been in the profile view I would have not missed the correct MEA for that section. I'll also scan/confirm FMS waypoints and altitudes as well. Finally; as we normally do on SIDs & STARs or any altitude change; confirm with the other pilot our next altitude restriction as early as possible.




Synopsis: BBD700 First Officer reported descending below charted altitude on approach to EGE; citing lack of chart clarity as contributing.
Date: 201303
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The First Officer pulled out and checked his oxygen mask and found a wadded up dry cleaning cloth in the mouthpiece. I have found numerous masks with the hoses tucked into the mask such that it will not auto-inflate for single-handed donning. Pilots and Maintenance need to be reminded that the head straps must not be tucked into the mask as they will not properly inflate. Also; ensure no debris is in the mask prior to stowing.




Synopsis: The pilots of an MD10 have identified foreign material inside the crew oxygen masks that would interfere with its operation.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was providing training on TAR-D. Traffic was in a little bit of a lull. I heard my trainee slow a DC9 behind a B757 for spacing to 250 KTS. A few minutes later; the aircraft was seen leaving 108 (Mode C flashes in the automation in this area to alert controllers to descend below 110- in my opinion; this is the best patch in the entire system. The airport departures climb to 100 off the ground). I took the frequency and immediately climbed him back to 110; and the departure position that owned this airspace called on the land line shortly after we climbed him back up. Upon talking with the pilot; and he said he had been issued 70. I asked him to advise the Controller if he ever gets an altitude lower than 110 on the 'long side' coming in to the airport again. He commented the he and the pilot flying both found the clearance odd; but didn't ask for clarification. We listened to the tape after we left position; and the 70 was issued clear as day. I have no excuses; I just missed it. Fatigue was not an issue. The aircraft was still 10 plus miles away from the departure path. He wasn't in proximity to any other aircraft.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller providing OJT noted an aircraft descended below normal assigned altitude; questioned the pilot and later reviewed the recording's only to discover the aircraft was assigned the abnormal altitude.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 2.5
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-31T Cheyenne II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was on my descent to land and ATC ask[ed] me if I had the weather and I said I couldn't pick it up yet. So they read me an old weather report. I don't remember the exact weather; but I was certain the wind direction was 270 and the speed was 19 KTS; scattered 600; broken 2;500. I was on the GPS RNAV Runway 35. Everything was going fine I was stabilized and I had visual of the runway at 600 feet. The rain was horrible; torrential down pour; it was difficult with the rain to judge my landing flare. I did not think my landing was any longer than usual and I had full flaps and my speed was variable with the gusts. I believe I touched down on the 1;000 foot markings. I touched down and went into reverse I was applying brakes and reverse and I felt like I was on a sheet of ice. There was a couple inches on the runway and I believe I was hydroplaning. The brakes didn't seem to work as I approached the end of the runway. I knew I was too slow to go around so I just kept the airplane straight. I was unable to make the taxi way and skidded off the runway. I shut everything down immediately and did not hear any weird noises in the engines or the landing gear. I walked around the airplane and didn't see any damage just mud on the gear.I'm not sure what I should have done differently. I have landed in worse winds and stopped fine. I have not experienced hydroplaning and in the future I need to divert and not even try to touch down. Circling to another runway was not an option either I did not have visual until 600 feet. The excessive rain really made everything on the landing very distorted and with the gusts it was hard to judge my speed in the flare. If I had a more accurate wind direction I feel I could have prepared my approach for a tail wind situation. If I had known it was going to be a tail wind and not a crosswind I never would have tried the approach to begin with. I would like to know where the center got the wind direction and how old the weather report was.




Synopsis: PA31 pilot reports landing on a 5;000 foot runway in heavy rain and being unable to stop before the end. He believes that he may have landed with a significant tailwind although the reported wind was a direct crosswind.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.VOR, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At 7;000 feet approximately 4.5 miles of the ZZZ VOR; pilots observed a large two piece drone; black in color; with camera equipment at 11 o'clock fly over the wing; clearing the aircraft's wing by what seemed like 1-2 feet. No evasive action was taken as pilots had no time to react. ATC was immediately notified and advised of drone's altitude; position and description. Flight continued to ZZZZ without incident. As soon as drone was spotted. Drone being flown on active airway. Advised ATC of description and location of drone activity. Suggestion: Drones not being flown in areas of heavy aircraft traffic.




Synopsis: Air taxi flight crew noticed a UAS pass 2 feet over the wing during descent and notified ATC.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to starting our two day pairing we completed our briefing as a crew and as PIC I asked all crew members if they felt they were fit for duty. All crewmembers ascertained that they were. On the second day of our pairing we as a crew made sure that we were fit for duty. Unbeknownst to me at the time; our Flight Attendant was disguising and working through some illness. I later discovered (following our trip) that she informed the [other] Flight Attendant of back pain; weakness; headaches; and nausea. She did not make these conditions known to me or the First Officer and continued working throughout the two day pairing. Following our trip I personally came down with chest congestion and a cough. The day after my trip I was notified by the Flight Attendant that she tested positive for COVID-19. I asked if the FA contacted the company and told her to feel better. I was off duty; but felt obligated to inform my First Officer and other Flight Attendant. According to the FA; she saw a doctor before the trip because she was feeling ill; but she was misdiagnosed with a sinus infection. Yet; she still flew with the supposed sinus infection; which turned out to be COVID-19.Lack of communication and transparency from the FA about her preexisting health condition led to the compromised safety of passengers and fellow flight crew. If unfit for duty; do not show up for work and compromise the health of aircrew/passengers/partners by disregarding the safety protocols and applicable FAR's that outline crew-member responsibilities.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported becoming ill after working on a trip with a sick Flight Attendant who did not inform all crew members that she was feeling sick and then later tested positive for COVID-19.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Level at 3;000 Ft on right downwind for ILS 19 TEB; abeam the field. Our TCAS auto populated on our Nav Display; with traffic at 12 o'clock; moving directly towards at co-altitude; 2 miles ahead. I started a left turn and then saw the traffic who also was in a turn in the same direction. I immediately reversed direction and began a climb. At the same time approach control called out the traffic. At 3;000 feet we were at the bottom of the Class B airspace. The controller asked us to return to heading when able and asked what kind of aircraft. I thought it was a big Piper Cherokee but the other pilot thought it was a Cirrus. He said he violated the Class B Airspace. We landed uneventfully at TEB.




Synopsis: CE550 Captain reported an airborne conflict with a single engine low wing aircraft at 3;000 feet while on right downwind for Runway 19 at TEB. Evasive action is taken.