elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The crew and I had been flying Aircraft X earlier that day on a previous turn and this was our second turn. Before we pushed back from the gate; Maintenance came aboard to get the logbook as they conducted a service check. We were able to close up the door and push back on time with no issues. Once we pushed back; we started both engines and shutdown the APU with no issues. Once we received our taxi instructions; I moved the throttles up to move the aircraft. Within about 10-20 seconds of the throttle movement; a sudden and strong odor permeated the cockpit. It was an incredibly strong odor and it kept getting stronger. I would describe the smell as a metallic and burnt oil type smell. No visible fumes were present. I decided to stop the aircraft and check with the First Officer to see if they smelt it as well. They agreed that it was very strong. I then called the flight attendants to see if they smelt it. Flight Attendant-A said they had a faint smell; but nothing strong; and Flight Attendant -B stated they didn't smell it. I decided to open up the windows in an attempt to get some fresh air to determine if perhaps the smell was just a brief instance. I instructed the First Officer to tell Ground that we would need to hold for the time being while we sorted out the issue. After a short time; I opened the vents and smelled [it] again. I had my oxygen mask ready; but felt that at that point it inhibited communication more than anything. The First Officer and I instead chose to keep the windows open and vents closed. I made several calls to the Company to coordinate with Dispatch and Maintenance in regards to the situation and a gate return. After a short time the First Officer and I agreed the flight could not be conducted safely and chose to do a gate return. We called operations to get a gate and after about 20-30 minutes we were able to taxi into the new gate and deplane the passengers.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported a metallic odor during taxi which resulted in a return to gate.
Date: 202103
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 (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon door closure Flight Attendant Y came up to me and informed me she was having problems with a passenger who is refusing to put his mask on. I told her I would go to the back while she checked the doors for me. I went to handle the passenger and she did closed doors and made the announcement. We both said cabin secure. I noticed the flight deck door was closed and had assumed she had done cabin secure for me seeing as I was tending to this passenger and she had done door closure for me. I continued on with the safety briefing. Approximately one minute into the safety briefing the Captain opened the flight deck door to inform me that no one informed him of cabin secure. Me and Flight Attendant X both became aware that we had assumed the other person had secured the cabin door and quickly re-secured the cabin. We continued on with our briefing.I believe we both made the mistake because of the destructive passenger. I had assumed that while I was tending to this passenger she had took over all of my duties and she assumed that I was going to finish my duties once I got back up into the gallery. I also believe the pilots close the door on their own to keep warm which is why we had gotten confused on the door being close.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being distracted by a disruptive passenger and forgetting to advise the flight crew the cabin was secure and they were ready to depart.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out we received an engine bleed air caution message. After completing the QRH it directed to isolate that engine's bleed air which would disable its cowl anti-icing (which was being adequately heated according to the cowl advisory message) and to avoid icing conditions. I communicated the issue with dispatch and maintenance control. After discussing options there were no airports within our fuel range where we could avoid icing conditions and that diverting to [a nearby alternate] would be the best course of action both for maintenance and operations. I decided to reconfigure the aircraft as it normally is so we would have cowl anti-icing abilities on the descent. We made a normal landing and had the maintenance issue addressed with the line maintenance.This issue had been written up twice in the past week and apparently fixed. What was replaced must not have been the problem or it failed too.Possibly further maintenance scrutiny on writeups with a history with more strict preventative maintenance. That's a hard one because maintenance indicated they replaced an item believed to have caused the problem.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported diverting to an alternate airport to avoid icing conditions after receiving an engine bleed air caution message.
Date: 201809
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After executing a stable visual approach to RWY 35R at Denver we had a long landing and were; as a result; unable to abide by Tower's request to take the high-speed taxiway. The Captain; who was the pilot flying; later explained to Tower that he was unable to take the high-speed taxiway due to the landing conditions that resulted from; among other factors; a quartering tailwind. In retrospect we may have also gained some airspeed over the runway threshold after being stable throughout the approach. The majority of my attention as the pilot monitoring at that point in the landing was on runway alignment. The amount of float we experienced in the flare was not expected. By the time touchdown was achieved it was clear we would have sufficient runway to stop safely but also clear that we would not make the high speed. We informed tower as quickly as possible that we would be unable to comply with their request. We decided real-time to bypass the high-speed taxiway and subsequently received the request to call Tower to explain.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported being unable to comply with Tower's instructions to exit at the high-speed taxiway.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On initial climbout on the Newark 4 departure; Captain checked in with TRACON. ATC acknowledged our check in; and shortly after called traffic off our nose out of turn as we were rolling out heading west. I was hand flying the departure climbing through 2;500 feet. MSL for 3;000 feet. MSL when I surprisingly heard 'Don't Climb! Don't Climb.' During this RA; we were in the process of finishing up our after takeoff clean up configuration and call outs when I saw the VSI (Vertical Speed Indicator) turn red from just below level to above; and green below. I followed SOP: Auto Pilot Off (already off); Flight Dir Off; Avoid the Red; Go to the Green!I instantly lowered the nose; banked left; and saw a Cessna out of the corner of my eye circle over top of us (estimated 500 feet above at my 2 O'Clock) banking through east in a turn back towards Teterboro Airport. Since we were in the process of cleaning up the aircraft; and to avoid drastically overspeeding the aircraft in 'Climb Power' I pulled the throttles to idle; disengaging the auto thrust to manually manipulate all control and power of the aircraft to avoid the conflict. The Captain did a great job backing me up with speed and altitude call outs; helped get me get back in the green from this surprise RA; and communicated the RA with ATC (Air Traffic Control).Once we heard 'Clear of Contact' we took a couple of deep breaths; were assigned a climb to 8;000 feet; reengaged the autopilot; autothrust; finished the after takeoff checklist; climbed up; and had an uneventful remainder of the flight. I remember the controller asking us if we had visual; I said yes; but not until after I was taking action. Not sure why this event occurred. Another light civil aircraft ventured into the path of this departure. I was surprised this conflicting traffic was a close as it was when we were told about it; and surprised that we were cleared for takeoff and given clearance to fly a SID if ATC saw this conflicting traffic flying towards or in the vicinity of our departure route.Better communication between Local and TRACON Controllers to better separate aircraft in high volume traffic airspace.




Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported receiving SID clearance with traffic above; resulting in an NMAC.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were switched from the OLM Seven to an RNAV arrival right at top of descent; off of a RADAR vector for spacing. We were able to program the last minute change and brief the approach; but time and workload were at a premium at that point; and getting the aircraft back into path was a struggle; we were high and fast. This put us into a full speed brake situation with speed intervention in order to meet the next speed restriction. Next; ATC issued a slow down during this maneuver (250 KTS) which boxed us in even more. Around 10;000; ATC issued a runway change from 34L to 34C. The Captain re-programmed the approach and set me up for 34C; but during this; the FMC caused a reversion to CWS and CWP and I lost any kind of LNAV/VNAV info for a brief period. Automation was soon restored and we continued uneventfully; probably because ATC reverted us to a vector clearance. This practice of issuing speed restrictions and not giving us lower soon enough really messed up our automation and caused too much distraction in my opinion. This could have easily led to a deviation. If we are going to fly RNAV arrivals; we need to be able to fly them as published when they are built to such close tolerance as these new SEA arrivals. We completely negated any kind of fuel savings with all of the speed and altitude changes (lack there of) during the procedure. I think declining these arrivals is the best procedure until everyone is on the same page.




Synopsis: Air Carrier inbound to SEA voiced concern regarding the issuance of speed restrictions on RNAV arrival procedures when ATC fails to issue lower altitudes compatible with FMS capabilities.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: APN complex hot with large force exercise. Multiple airspaces; including a temporary Military Operations Center (MOA); with bases as low as 5;000. Building weather with deviations. First; Aircraft Y was direct to APN level at 5;000. I had moved Aircraft Y from nonradar conditions at 4;000 to 5;000 for an unusual departure from GOV Tower; which I had wrongly thought (as it turns out) was departing Runway 14 (he actually departed 32). Aircraft Y then progressed into the temporary MOA (5;000 to 27;000) when APN Approach called (upon taking their handoff); and asked whether I was going to move him down to 4;000 to avoid the airspace. I then descended Aircraft Y to 4;000. He barely entered the lateral confines at approximately 4;500.Sometime around the same time; APN Approach handed me Aircraft X; opposite direction; at 5;000. I knew the airspace (Garland MOA) was active at 6;000; but simply forgot. I may have seen the '6;000 to 23;000' associated with the MOA on the screen and used 6;000 instead of 500 to 1;000 feet below. Upon exiting APN airspace; I climbed the aircraft to 6;000; partly to avoid any potential conflict with Aircraft Y going the opposite direction. Not that they were in conflict at the time; but I was busy and expected deviations from both. Aircraft X was in the airspace for at least 20 to 30 miles. I realized my mistake after the phone call about Aircraft Y from APN Approach. By this time; Aircraft X was nearly clear; and elected to keep him there for another 5 miles until I could climb the aircraft on course.I was busy; and just lost the flick. There is no other excuse; it was probably my worse session in quite some time; other than my mistake that happened here. A D-side was provided a short while after. I should have asked for a D-side. This would have helped immensely.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported allowing an aircraft to enter Military Operations Areas without coordination while working special military operations and dealing with weather deviations.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were on our takeoff roll; at just under 90 knots; we received a 'stabilizer' CAWS aural warning. I pulled the power to idle to reject the takeoff and as we exited the runway Tower asked if we required assistance. My First Officer responded that no assistance was required and we would like to exit the runway onto taxiway bravo to ascertain our situation. I called Dispatch who conferenced with Maintenance Control. Together we determined it had been a high speed abort (i.e. above 80 knots) and we were required to return to the gate.This exact same CAWS warning occurred three days before with this aircraft. The logbook indicated that it happened at 120 knots and that they continued the takeoff. Of course; it would have been great to have resolved it after it happened the first time.




Synopsis: The flight crew of an MD-83 rejected their takeoff at 90 knots due to a CAWS stabilizer warning.
Date: 201904
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My crewmate and I were conducting an IFR flight to TUL. We were given vectors and instructions from ATC (Center) to expedite our descent 'all the way down' from our cruising altitude of FL430 to FL240. I complied with the heading assignment and began a descent at approximately 2;000 feet per minute. Approximately two minutes later; ATC asked if we could increase our descent rate; [the First Officer] replied that we could; and they again asked us to expedite our descent. I subsequently increased our rate of descent to 4;000-4;500 feet per minute. As we descended through approximately FL340 we entered IMC conditions. [While] descending through approximately FL280; we momentarily encountered severe turbulence - we both were strained hard against our shoulder harnesses and seat belts; I heard the contents of the cabin being lifted and dropping back down; the autopilot disconnected; and the airplane's pitch and roll attitude changed very abruptly. At that time I took manual control of the flight controls and slowed our rate of descent and airspeed as [the FO] and I both tried to assess what had happened. Immediately thereafter I saw contrails from another aircraft above us and to our left; and realized that we had just flown through that aircraft's wake. After a quick assessment and communication with [the FO]; I re-engaged the autopilot and we continued our descent as assigned. [The FO] notified ATC that we had just been vectored through wake turbulence. A few minutes later; he notified ATC again; and informed them that we had encountered severe turbulence as a result. ATC asked if there were any injuries or damage to the airplane; [the FO] replied 'not that we know of'; and we were handed off to the next ATC controller. The flight continued to TUL without further incident.




Synopsis: Learjet Captain reported encountering severe wake turbulence descending through FL280.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LBB.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LBB
ATC / advisory: Tower LBB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While crossing the final approach fix; ATC cleared us to land number two. We saw no other traffic until a Aircraft Y came out of the sun in front of us. It had been in a descending steep right turn and appeared at our altitude at about 1 o'clock. Initially; I thought it was extremely close on the order of several hundred ft. It could have been as far as 1;500 feet; but I cannot be certain. We performed a rejected landing and turned left to add space while the Aircraft Y performed a touch and go. After landing; we were instructed to turn off the runway at an intersection where an airplane was waiting to cross. After selecting a later turn off; ATC told the Aircraft Y to go-around because separation was lost. I cannot think of any errors made by our flight crew. We were on speed; altitude and in the correct aircraft state. I don't know how to avoid this type of event in the future.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported performing a go-around due to another aircraft unexpectedly appearing in front of them on short final.