elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arriving at the jet for pre-flight duties in ZZZ (approximately 45 minutes prior to push) the gate agents informed us a jump seater had already been awarded and had gone down to the jet already (before passengers were boarded). This surprised us as no-one informed us and they had already let him go down to the jet (flight attendants were on-board). When we arrived on the flight deck; he was there.  He then told us it was really hot and he took it upon himself to start the APU (Auxiliary Power Unit) and put on air since it was hot in the aircraft.  My Captain was pretty upset by his actions.  He talked to him; looked through his credentials to make sure he was authorized to be a jump seater; and explained to him that that kind of behavior as a jump seater isn't good and that he shouldn't have started the APU or gone down without checking with us first. The jump seater said he was on the 737; but upon checking [credentials] it appears he was on the Airbus (for the Sep bid month anyway). The jump seater ended up getting a seat in the back.




Synopsis: Jump seat passenger broke protocol on B737 by entering cockpit and starting APU without flight crew on board.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: NHK.TRACON, MD
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; Thunderstorm; 1
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NHK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NHK
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight between BRV VOR and TAPPA Intersection encountered heavy turbulence. [I] deviated to avoid heavy rain and severe updrafts. [I] lost GPS display for unknown reason. [I] should have requested a deviation earlier. Too much reliance on Nexrad Radar probably contributed to the situation.




Synopsis: AA5 pilot reports encountering heavy turbulence at 5;000 FT while attempting to use Nexrad to avoid the worst weather.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We got de-iced and anti-iced in the alley with the engines off. Once cleared by the de-icers we started both engines; put the engine anti-ice on; and proceeded to taxi out of the alley. The alley and ramp area were a mixture of loose and packed snow. Once we were on [Taxiway] D; the taxiways were clear of snow to the pavement; but were still a bit icy. As we taxied we noticed a slight engine vibration. At an intersection short of the runway was a good; non-icy portion of pavement where we ran up the engines. We noticed a significant vibration in the Number 1 engine and no vibration on the Number 2 engine. We told ATC that we needed to return to the gate and they cleared us back to the ramp. A post flight inspection revealed several damaged fan blades on the Number 1 engine. Maintenance was called and a log book entry was made.


Second narrative: Airport Operations needed to have the ramp and taxiways plowed better.


Synopsis: The flight crew of an A320 noted excessive vibration in the left engine during taxi out after being de and anti-iced at the gate. They returned to the gate for an inspection which revealed several damaged fan blades.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending on the DANDD Arrival into DEN; we were told to descend via. We re-cruised the current altitude while setting the bottom altitude in the altitude window. Somewhere close to DANDD intersection; the aircraft dropped out of its vertical mode (CWA P) and; before we realized it; we descended below the 17;000 ft assigned at DANDD intersection to an altitude of nearly 16;000 ft.  At once I kicked off the autopilot and began to climb back to 17;000 ft; which we did before crossing the DANDD intersection. Reviewing the incident; we still don't know what happened. We had it dialed in and the vertical mode reverted to CWS P.Since our software is not the best; and we have no aural warnings of VNAV SPD or CWA P; alas; we must watch it ever more closely--like a hawk.


Second narrative: It would be nice to have better software - the aircraft constantly goes out of VNAV PATH and into VNAV SPEED for no reason; and sometimes the VNAV disconnects for no reason like it did to us today.


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported deviating from the cleared RNAV arrival altitude constraints when the FMS dropped out of VNAV.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Tower, IL
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We approached ORD during multiple B747 operations.  On final during a visual approach Tower cleared a B747 for takeoff.  When he taxied for takeoff he blocked the localizer and caused us to get multiple full scale deflections. We were on a stable visual approach and made a normal landing.




Synopsis: Pilot flying in to ORD reports of a bad signal on the ILS due to B747 traffic taxiing in front of the signal.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The wig wag lights at the hold line for the runways are too [bright] and destroy dark adaptation.  Thus endangering night flight.  This is a Safety of Flight issue and probably exists throughout the system. Tower/Ground Control tells me that they are dimmed as low as they go.Please help because night vision is important to see and avoid in VMC/VFR flight.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported the wig wag lights at DVT airport are too bright and affect night vision adaptation.
Date: 201701
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
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Parked
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight; the APU was started to warm the cold cabin up. After a short period of time; an odor was noticed that was unusual. The APU bleed was turned off and maintenance was called. Maintenance arrived and agreed that the smell was unusual. After he discussed it with Maintenance Control; the decision was made to defer the APU bleed so that the flight could continue. The flight departed with no issues. During decent into our destination at approximately 10;000 ft; the flight attendant called saying they noticed a smell as well. The smell seemed to dissipate slightly until approximately 3;500 ft when it reappeared. The flight landed without issue and taxied to the gate. After parking; all of the crew members started having different symptoms including headaches; nausea; an oily taste; and other symptoms. Maintenance was called and the gate agent was advised to hold off on boarding. All crew members called the nurse line and all but myself were advised to be seen by medical professionals. While the flight crew was at the Urgent Care facility; flight attendants were originally asked to crew the flight back to the previous airport and the flight crew was asked to deadhead back on that flight. The whole crew was eventually pulled from that leg and put to rest. The Mechanic that came to inspect the aircraft after landing indicated that the aircraft has had recurring issues with fumes.[Recommend] further inspections on that aircraft to isolate the issue.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported that during preflight Maintenance placed an MEL on the APU after the previous crew reported an odd odor. During descent the odor returned. After landing all crew members reported headaches; nausea; and other symptoms. Medical attention was sought.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were to fly this aircraft on a revenue flight. The previous Captain reported a DMI [Deferred Maintenance Instruction] on the aircraft for high LP vibrations. The procedure via Maintenance was to follow the QRH and keep the LP out of the amber range. He was flight planned at FL350. Following the procedure he was unable to climb above FL290. This was a N1 of 78%. I asked Dispatch if we had any degraded performance for the aircraft with this DMI. He responded no. I asked Maintenance if there was any special performance to confirm Dispatch. They also reported no. I departed and was flight planned at FL350. We were only able to reach FL270 and an N1 of 75% following the QRH. I was very uncomfortable flying the aircraft with an engine that had unknown performance. What was my single engine performance if the good engine failed? What was my drift down? What is my performance period? I asked everyone I could. The best answer that I got was it was an FAA approved DMI and the aircraft could be flown for 50 hours. There where no added restrictions. The aircraft should be lubed properly to not have high LP vibs. The aircraft should not be flown with an unknown level of degraded engine performance. We are flying to airports with high MEA's out west. How do you fly a normal flight using the QRH? How could this be our procedure?




Synopsis: EMB-175 Check Airman is instructed to fly a revenue trip with an aircraft that had been written up for high LP vibrations; with maintenance deferred and told to comply with QRH procedures which results in only 75% N1 in cruise.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C680 was in level flight direct to the VOR level at 21;000 FT. I recognized the possible traffic situation and left an Air Carrier level at 22;000 FT for the C680. A Military aircraft was exiting a Restricted Area requesting an IFR [clearance]. I was taking that coordination from the D-Side around the time the A300 checked in. I descended the A300 to 20;000 FT. I knew that I needed to sequence the Air Carrier and the A300 and an overtake situation was underway. The Military checked in requesting an IFR and asking me to deactivate the Restricted Airspace. I took coordination from the D-Side about the Restricted Area. The military aircraft explained he wanted to go VFR; and then became unsure. He then asked if he could go VFR. His confusion took a lot of my attention. Once I sorted out the Military flight I recognized the situation with the A300 and the C680. I turned the A300 20 left and the C680 20 left and called traffic for both. D-Side training was underway at my sector. I was taking a lot of irrelevant coordination at times when I needed to be handling other situations. I allowed myself to focus on the aircraft that was requesting all of the attention. As controllers we know how to continually scan and not let a pilot keep your attention. In the future I need to continue to move through the sector and not let a D-Side or a confused pilot try and demand all of my attention when they don't need it.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event; listing coordination distractions as a causal factor.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X came on to my frequency asking 'if he had missed the handoff'. I did a database search and nothing came up for that call sign. I asked him for his position and altitude and saw a target in the approximate location at which the aircraft said he was at roughly the same altitude; which was well outside of my airspace by about 30 or 40 miles. The Mode C readout I saw varied around 17;300 feet and fluctuating a couple hundred feet on either side of that; so I gave him a new beacon code; and told him to maintain VFR. I had a couple other clearances to issue; while my D side got everything situated to get a data block set up for the correct sector to be able to easily take radar on the aircraft; again all the while assuming the aircraft was VFR.When I finally asked the aircraft if he was VFR or IFR; he said he was IFR and then his mode C read 17;000 feet. I called that sector immediately and told them the situation. They then asked me to issue a 20 degree right turn for their traffic; but I was uncertain; because I didn't know if it was their airspace or Approach's airspace. I issued the turn anyways and they eventually took radar on the aircraft and I switched the plane to them. I don't believe there was a loss of separation. It appeared that for whatever reason; the aircraft's flight plan was never passed to the Center either manually or automatically from an Approach Control because it also seemed as though the Center sector had no idea who the aircraft was either. Then also theorizing that Norfolk approach switched the aircraft to the incorrect frequency as well.




Synopsis: ZDC Center Controller reported an aircraft called them that was on an IFR flight plan outside of their airspace in another sector and with no radar data tag.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skywagon 185
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Flight Test
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While conducting some propeller and governor testing in a Cessna 185 with an experimental airworthiness certificate; I experienced a catastrophic engine failure while descending through approximately 6000 feet. The #2 cylinder connecting rod failed which punched a hole in the top of the engine case. Oil covered the windshield and smoke filled the cockpit. The engine continued to run on 5 cylinders and the right magneto under reduced power. I was able to get the airplane back to the airport and land safely. The failure happened approximately 5 miles from the airport.




Synopsis: C185 pilot reported an engine failure during governor testing led to a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201411
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the climb out departing 15L out of IAH we were on the RITAA SID. After checking on with Dept. Control I understood our clearance to be 'climb via the sid; except climb and maintain 16000.' I was confident that is what I heard and I responded with 'climb via sid except climb and maintain 16000.' After discussing it with the Capt I asked and he approved to delete the altitude restrictions at the fix with the 4000B (TTAPS) restriction and the 5000B (BOTLL) restriction. We continued a normal climb to 16000. There was no loss of seperation from other aircraft; no TAs; no RAs and no comments from ATC about our altitude. ATC told us to contact Houston center and we continued a normal flight. After discussing it with the Captain; he and I decided out of an abundance of caution we should file an FSAP in case we misunderstood our climb out clearance. I am confident that is what I heard and what I responded with; but after spending the rest of the flight going over it in my head; I realize that may not have been EXACTLY what the controller said and what I responded with. I just remember reading the clearance back to ATC and thinking 'we can delete those at or below restrictions'; therefore thinking we had received a 'Climb and maintain' clearance.


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


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew departing IAH on the RITAA RNAV SID off Runway 15 questioned whether ATC's clearance to '...climb via the departure except maintain 16;000 feet' removed the restrictions at or below four and five thousand feet at TTAPS and BOTLL respectively.  They opted to delete the restrictions.