elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing from ZZZ. Initial Climb on runway heading with intention to remain in pattern. Aircraft Y was crossing ZZZ VOR before our takeoff and had announced on CTAF that he was going to cross midfield; make a teardrop entry to the left downwind for the runway. He specifically stated that he was going to enter downwind behind us. When climbing through 600 feet; I received a traffic warning from ADS-B stating that traffic (Aircraft Y) was nearly overhead with 500 feet vertical separation. Upon reaching 800 feet the traffic (Aircraft Y) was directly overhead with 300 feet vertical separation. This event caused us to temporarily suspend the climb until Aircraft Y had passed. Aircraft Y was below pattern altitude; 1;200 feet; by 100 feet when he was closest to us. This aircraft flew nearly the entire teardrop maneuver off the departure end of the runway at pattern altitude and below. Then proceeded to cut across the upwind portion of the pattern to join the downwind from the inside; rather than the intended 45-degree entry.




Synopsis: C172 flight Instructor providing training at a non-towered airport reported an NMAC with an aircraft that did not fly the pattern they stated on CTAF.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
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: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was being fueled. The fueler brought to my attention of fuel imbalance and the aircraft was not fueling properly and that he stopped fueling. I checked the imbalance on the MFD (Multi-function Flight Display); there was a 1;500 LB imbalance. I called Dispatch and was talking to Maintenance. It was brought to my attention that fuel was leaking from the left wing. I stepped outside and fuel was gushing from the left wing. I called Operations and told them we have a fuel leak and request fire trucks as a precaution. I shut down all power to the aircraft and went outside.Fuel was gushing out of left wing. Over-pressurization of the left fuel tank causing it to vent fuel. I called Operations and requested fire trucks as a precaution. I de-powered the aircraft. Myself and crew evacuated the aircraft. Aircraft has a history of not fueling properly.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported an over-fueling problem associated with a particular aircraft.
Date: 201207
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cockpit preflight I discovered a 1.5 inch crack in the forward cockpit windshield L1. Also there was signs of moisture ingress and a burn mark; possibly due to inner layer arcing. We reported this to Maintenance and the Maintenance Supervisor subsequently decided to take the aircraft out of service. This caused a 2.5 hour delay. My longstanding concern is that Maintenance is not adequately inspecting the cockpit windows for defects. Had we not noticed it; this aircraft would have crossed the Pacific with non-deferrable defects. As I have reported on many occasions in the past; company mechanics do no appear to have adequate knowledge of window defects; nor does there appear to be an adequate inspection process to catch potential safety hazards such as this one between major maintenance events. Is this being done purposely to enhance dispatch reliability or is it an issue of inadequate maintenance training?




Synopsis: B747-400 Captain reports discovering a 1.5 inch crack in the forward windshield with burn marks during preflight and believes that Maintenance is not adequately inspecting the windshields.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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)
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 Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First ten rows had their masks below their noses. Had to make additional announcements. Stopped counting how many people dropped their masks to order.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that many passengers were not wearing face masks properly.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After engine start when reconfiguring the packs; the flight attendants reported a strong urine odor in the aft galley. The odor dissipated in just a few minutes. After discussing the issue; the flight deck and cabin crew decided the odor had dissipated and was not a safety issue. The flight continued to ZZZ. After the decision was made the odor did not pose a safety issue; we decided to continue the flight. We sent an ACARS to Maintenance; and made a logbook entry.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a momentary strong 'urine odor' after engine start in the aft galley which dissipated immediately.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: All Runways were wet; taxiway conditions were listed as poor to medium. After crossing Runway XX; I slowed to 5 knots to make the left turn onto Taxiway X. The aircraft began the turn; then 45 degrees into the turn began sliding forward. I applied the brakes; and came to a complete stop with all gear remaining on the runway. Ground was called; and they arranged for an escort for a [company] tug. The tug began to slide also; so a sand truck was called. The sand truck slid sideways initially; but began sanding the area and remaining taxiways. Following the application of sand; the tug was able to connect to the aircraft and put us back on centerline. We were then pulled forward out of the icy area. As the taxiways were now sanded; the taxi and departure were uneventful.Cause: Poor to medium taxiway conditionsSuggestions: Sand all taxiways when conditions are listed as poor to medium.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that ice on a taxiway resulted in a momentary loss of aircraft control.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TVK.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X inbound TVK and requested an RNAV Approach to Runway 16 due to IMC conditions. Aircraft X advised they had the current weather. Another sector informed me that the NOTAMs were read to the pilot. I reviewed the NOTAMs for the airport prior to issuing approach clearance. The NOTAMs at the time were PAPI OTS; RWY END LGTS OTS and one OBST LGT OTS. Aircraft X was cleared for RNAV approach and was instructed how to cancel IFR and frequency change was approved. Aircraft X cancelled IFR clearance in the air after breaking out of IMC. Shortly after; Aircraft X queried if I was still able to hear them. I replied I could. Aircraft X asked if there was a NOTAM for a runway or airport closure. I replied 'negative'.There were no NOTAMs for airport or runway closure at the airport. Aircraft X reported a lighted yellow X on the runway approach end and saw construction personnel and equipment on the runway. Aircraft X executed a go-around and circled the airport. Aircraft X requested IFR clearance to a nearby alternate airport and landed safely. I reported the incident to the CIC (Controller in Charge). I assumed the airport to be closed until I was told otherwise. I made a note of this at the sector and passed the information on to my relief. The next day; the NOTAMs showed the first and last 500 ft of the runway were closed.The runway and/or airport closure NOTAM was not displayed on at the time the approach clearance was issued. Either the NOTAM was not issued or valid at the time the approach clearance was issued or through some glitch; the NOTAM was not properly displayed at the sector. The status of runway and airport NOTAMs is critical to safety and should always be accurate.




Synopsis: ZAU Center Controller reported that an aircraft had to go-around after being issued an RNAV Approach due to equipment and personnel on the runway.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taking off from LAX original clearance was heading 250 degrees; climb to 3;000 FT vectors. Taking the runway; the Controller said after departing turn to heading 270 degrees; at which point the pilot flying said; 'last time I turned before Shoreline and got a nasty gram from The Department of Airports so I'm not turning till the Shoreline.' Because we were light; we were off in 3;000 FT of runway. There is still another 2 miles to the Shoreline. Soon enough the Controller got after us and I replied; 'the difficulty with the early turn is the airport has a problem with it.' Needless to say he was not happy. The problem here is that there was a conflict between pilot flying and Tower and all I had to do was advise the Tower. But now I recognize that when the Tower tells you to do something; do it! It is in the name of safety. I was lulled into the assumption that the pilot flying and the Controller were on the same page. From now on; no assumptions and do what the Controller says then question them; unless it's obviously not safe.




Synopsis: A high performance corporate jet Captain refused to turn to heading 270 after takeoff from LAX because the previous flight's early turn resulted in an Airport Authority letter. This departure LAX Controllers need separation and were unhappy.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a part 91 flight with 2 passengers during our initial descent between FL410-FL350 we encountered a right engine failure and Cabin Altitude light resulting in [immediate] descent and landing at ZZZ . At FL410 prior to descent and engine failure; engine heats were selected on for 20-30 minutes. In the descent we heard a loud bang from the right engine and experienced a significant bump in pressure +1900 on pressure meter a few seconds after that we had right engine T2 fail amber annunciator followed by a red right generator fail. The engine started to roll back causing the oil pressure; hydraulic and fuel low pressure annunciator to illuminate. We advised ATC at that point and diverted to ZZZ. As we turned toward ZZZ we started to initiate the engine failure checklist then our cabin altitude annunciator illuminated. We discontinued the engine failure checklist and had to do an [immediate] descent following memory action items and dropping masks. The cabin had climbed to 15;000 ft. which caused [the] emergency pressure light to illuminate. Once we got below 10;000 cabin altitude light had gone out. ZZZ had given us vectors for a visual approach to [the runway]. We then proceeded to run the engine failure checklist. We saw that there was still N1 rotation so we decided to do a restart. The restart was successful and we landed.




Synopsis: CE-525 Pilot reported executing a diversion due to a right engine failure and loss of cabin pressurization.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At 1000 ft AGL; the Captain lost situational awareness and stopped climbing. I asked if he wanted VNAV two times and after not getting a response I focused on the fact that he wasn't climbing and was actually beginning a descent and accelerating the airplane. We received a 'Don't Sink' GPWS warning. Captain then made an abrupt pull up (2 Gs) while calling for flaps to zero. I saw the airspeed go to 192 kts during the abrupt pull up. I was pushing forward on the yoke to ensure we didn't stall. Captain finally recovered with a pushover of of 0.3 Gs. Flight continued.  There was no interference from ATC. We had been cleared to around 17000 shortly after takeoff (I don't remember the exact altitude but it was not a low altitude level off altitude). After climbing to cruise altitude a discussion was made about the events. Captain thought the speed with flaps 1 was only 260. I saw higher (around 280) but I couldn't say exactly what the speed was. Captain wrote the flap overspeed up as 260 and a visual inspection was conducted in [destination]. Captain stated he was distracted by a 'map shift' on takeoff and he saw a 'Stab Trim' EICAS message at some point. Additional factor is the cockpit noise that prevents crew members from communicating effectively. The use of an intercom system (locking Push-to-talk switch or rubber band to hold down the switch or just have crew members push the intercom switch when talking) would have reduced any confusion as to what was being said/communicated. Crew members have to SHOUT to be heard because they wear ANR (Active Noise Reduction) headsets on one ear and try and communicate over the cockpit noise without use of the airplanes intercom system.




Synopsis: B767-300 First Officer reported the Captain (pilot flying) lost situational awareness shortly after takeoff and oversped the flaps.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
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: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While waiting to be marshaled into our gate; Ramp Control asked us to move forward to be sure and not block Taxiway Bravo. We were parked perpendicular on the Whiskey Taxiway with a slight undershoot angle to the lead-in line to the gate. After clearing both the left and right side of the aircraft (for traffic) and with the taxi-light ON; I slowly taxied the aircraft forward. The nose of the aircraft proceeded to taxi across the vehicle access road in front of the gate when the First Officer called out a de-ice truck approaching the left side of the aircraft. I turned to look and witnessed a fast-moving de-ice truck slamming on its brakes and I slammed on the aircraft's brakes. This brought the aircraft to a sudden and immediate stop. The de-ice truck was able to stop before hitting the aircraft and I waited for the de-ice truck to move out of the way and for the ground crew to get in position before proceeding any closer towards the gate.Recommend lead-in lights to the gates to assist pilots in making straighter approaches (from the taxiway) and fewer corrections when coming into the gate.Greater emphasis to all persons driving on access roads to slow down and be more vigilant about clearing for aircraft movements both into and out of the gates.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a near collision with a ground vehicle while maneuvering near the gate.