elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being cleared for takeoff; I heard 'whoosh' sound when I selected gear up. I saw three red gear un-safe light; 3 green 'gears down and lock' lights; and one amber light for nose gear. At the same time; the master caution light flashed with #2 hydraulic ISO valve and outboard roll spoiler indication on caution panel. Hydraulic instruments also indicated #2 hydraulic quantity down to one quart. The Captain slowed to 130 KTS and maintained initial altitude of 3;000 FT. After 1;500 FT; I completed the After Takeoff Checklist; then proceeded to complete the #2 Hydraulic ISO Valve Caution Light Checklist. I also completed the Alternate Gear Extension Checklist as required. The Captain contacted Dispatch and they asked us to continue to [destination]. When the Captain talked to the Approach Controller; he requested the equipment to standby due to high and gusty wind condition. We completed the Approach Checklist before landing. Post flight inspection found hydraulic fluid was slipping down to the nose gear.




Synopsis: The pilots of a Dash 8 experienced a hydraulic failure during gear retraction. The crew ran all of the associated checklists and requested that the emergency equipment be standing by due to high winds. The Captain performed a successful landing at the intended destination where hydraulic fluid was identified leaking from the nose landing gear.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MDW.Tower, IL
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction
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
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My Co-pilot and I both agree that the Midway 5 Departure at MDW is confusing at best. The chart says that you have to maintain a heading until turning to a new heading. What isn't clear is that you will get an assigned heading by the tower. But a new heading assigned by the tower should supersede all other clearances; right? So Midway Tower should say comply with the SID and then turn to a heading. My other argument is that most departures are either all long range navigation (NAV) or a heading (HDG). This is an airport where you take off in NAV and have the added switch to HDG almost immediately. This is an added step out of the normal sequence of events for our departures. I am not in favor of that; especially in a crowded airspace when our workload is the highest. The Midway 5 should be an all NAV with clear expectations for the airplanes to comply.




Synopsis: CL30 Captain reported confusion over the wording of a SID.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger in XX2 was non-compliant with mask during final cleanup and securing of cabin for landing in ZZZ (turbulent procedures). Flight Attendant B came forward for assistance and by the time I was finished gaining compliance we were on final descent. I was unable to take my jumpseat.Plan ahead for communication with other FAs and flight deck if needed through intercom and do your best to be seated for personal safety.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported not being seated during landing due to having to deal with a non-compliant passenger regarding the face mask policy.
Date: 201208
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight Attendant worked ZZZ-ZZZ1 then drafted to work ZZZ1-ZZZ2. No rest on ground in ZZZ1 and no rest break during flight to ZZZ2. Flight attendant meal was moldy and not edible. No other food available on flight. Flight Attendant felt extreme mental and physical fatigue upon arrival in ZZZ2. Total flight time at 12 hours 18 minutes. Delay in taxi and delay in jetway arrival. Passenger delay in jetway for child strollers. Requested help of flight CSR for passenger jetway escort. Flight Attendant had a verbal confrontation with CSR over assistance. Flight attendants had a 45 minute ride to layover hotel. Flight Attendant felt post traumatic anxious the next day.




Synopsis: B767 Flight Attendant describes departing on a planned seven hour flight then being informed upon arrival that she must fly another leg of five hours due to staffing issues.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wheels/Tires/Brakes
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After we were clear for takeoff on the Runway XX; at ZZZ airport. The Captain applied power; he waited for the engine to stabilize; then he pressed TOGA. As the plane started moving; it suddenly started veering to the right. He tried to correct it by pressing the left rudder; but the aircraft did not respond right away. After a few seconds; the plane veer back to the left; but it only went about 45 degrees to the left. After that; the Captain pressed the right rudder and was able to bring it back to control. Furthermore; we stopped at the runway; then; I called the tower to abort the takeoff. Finally; we were able to taxi off the runway and went back to the gate.


Second narrative: Cleared for takeoff Runway XX. Engines spooled up 'taxiing' up to takeoff point on Runway XX. With engines at 40% N1 pushed TOGA button and throttles advanced. We observed the white arcs advancing but the plane didn't seem to be accelerating normally. As I glanced inside to ensure the auto throttles were engaged (they were) the aircraft started to drift right. I tried to correct back with the rudder as we always do but it had no effect. As the right drift continued I rejected the take off and had to use almost full nose wheel tiller to correct back to centerline. We smelled burning rubber; so we taxied clear of the runway and had ARFF (Airport Rescue Firefighting) come inspect the gear and wheels. No problems found by ARFF. Tower had the runway inspected. Nothing found. I had ARFF follow us to the gate where we made an AML entry and had a lengthy discussion with Maintenance. During the takeoff roll the throttles never made it to Takeoff Thrust and I was looking outside the whole time; but the speed achieved was well below 80 kts. Probably around 40-45 kts. In addition; on taxi out when brakes were applied to stop in line they often 'chattered.'We suspected a brake problem or asymmetric thrust.I'm not sure why it happened. I've seen asymmetric thrust before and it is easily corrected with rudder to steer back to centerline. This plane was very difficult to get turning back to the left.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported the takeoff was rejected after the aircraft drifted to the right and was not responding to rudder inputs.
Date: 202007
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
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: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When aircraft arrived there was a green tagged single wheel hover board device that had been placed in the pit. Passenger said that he attempted to take it onboard; but wouldn't fit. Ramp placed in pit on green tag; no battery form attached. Did not appear to be a mobility device. Appeared to be rechargeable lithium ion.




Synopsis: Airline ramp personnel reported; during cargo unloading; a Hover board incorrectly transported with battery installed and no battery form attached.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Other Flight School
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a cross country flight a partial power loss was experienced and a precautionary landing was made at a private field. On that day; the conditions were clear sky and over 10 sm visibility. The aircraft was a Cessna 152. We had full fuel which was checked for quality; adequate oil; and the engine gauges were reading normal. We completed our climb to 6;500 feet; set up for cruise; and all indications were normal. Approximately fifteen minutes into our cruise we began experiencing power losses from our power setting of 2400 RPMs down to as low as 1400 RPMs. Immediately we increased the mixture and reported the problem with Center; but did not declare an emergency. We were unable to maintain altitude; so with assistance from Center we began tracking towards ZZZ. A precautionary landing was made at ZZZ with no damage to persons or property. The owner/operator of the aircraft was immediately notified and made aware of the incident.




Synopsis: C152 pilot experienced low power at 6;500 feet and diverted to a nearby private field when altitude could no longer be maintained.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Engine
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On landing rollout encountered flock of birds. Hit multiple birds and heard them impact different parts of the plane. Immediate smell of burned bird filled the cabin implying we had at least one ingested in the engine. The following morning we met with the mechanic. He performed 2 inspections and noticed one of the blades had a 'shadow.' He was very concerned with this however our Maintenance department was more concerned about the plane leaving on time for a live leg. There was apparent no guidance from our Maintenance department other than we were [running late]. After further examinations and consultations with [manufacturer] and successful engine runs it was in fact determined to be okay. I can't vouch for whatever was said on the Maintenance side just what I heard the mechanic telling [local maintenance]. I'm a little concerned with the idea that any internal engine issue was not as critical as departing on time.I [suggest] try having a different priority when it comes to the safe operation. Especially since nothing happened; but easily could have been different as we all know what birds can do to a jet engine.




Synopsis: Corporate aircraft pilot reported company Maintenance was more concerned the trip departed on time than the damage that may have occurred from a bird strike to the engine.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During approach the weather was down to minimums and the airport had closed. I had forgotten to turn the airport lights on during approach. When we broke out of the clouds at about 200 feet above the ground; we then realized the [airport] lights were not on. The Captain said he had the runway insight and continued. I then immediately tried to key the mike and accidentally was pushing the stab trim button instead of the mike switch. I then keyed the mike switch on the center pedestal to turn the lights on. There was a brief pause before the lights turned on after I had keyed the mike 7 times. Unfortunately; the timing was not in our favor and we landed with the runway lights off. The lights illuminated immediately after touchdown. We should have gone around and I should have reminded myself what to do when flying into an uncontrolled field.




Synopsis: During a night CAT I landing in minimum weather conditions at a non-controlled airport; the crew neglected to remotely activate the airport runway lighting system and touched down without runway lights. At the Captain's call of runway in sight at about 200 feet AGL; it was realized that the runway was not lit and the First Officer; the PNF; attempted to activate the lights by keying the mic button seven times but moved the stab trim switch instead. The lights were eventually activated after touchdown.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon initial contact with Approach Control; we were assigned Runway 1C at IAD. We requested 1L due to its proximity to our gate. Approach Control changed our runway to 1R and provided a 090 vector off the Gibbz 3 RNAV to a base leg for 1R. We were then given a 060 heading to intercept the 1R localizer and asked to report the airport in sight. After reporting the airport in sight; we were cleared for a visual to 1R and instructed to contact Tower. We noted traffic off to our right; but did not consider it a factor. Just outside the FAF; we received a TA at the same time initial contact was made to Tower. This was quickly followed by a 'monitor vertical speed' and 'clear of conflict'. Due to the audible volume of The TCAS; as well as the distraction of looking for the traffic; we missed the Tower's response to our check-in and asked him to repeat their last transmission. We then received an RA 'descend' with the HSI displaying an aircraft within 400 feet. The pilot flying initiated a descent until we [heard] 'clear of conflict' again. He noted the aircraft was above and to the right of our position; close enough to clearly see their engine nacelles. Tower then informed us he was showing an aircraft above us and asked if we had the traffic in sight. We responded yes. Tower then proceeded to vector the other aircraft away from our position and asked us if we had received an RA. We responded in the affirmative; verified our clearance to land; and landed without further incident. While not totally sure what happened; it appears there was miscommunication between Approach Control; Tower; and the other aircraft. We were cleared for an approach to 1R; but the other aircraft must have thought we were going to 1C. This caused him to turn base early resulting in the very close proximity.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported an NMAC on approach to IAD.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working R-47 and we had been seeing Severe Weather Avoidance Plan (SWAP) routes all day coming out of Chicago Center (ZAU) (right into the weather like usual).  The usual SWAP route is OTENS..ANEWA..APE.  I received the handoff from G-89 on Aircraft X climbing to FL330. This SWAP route that Aircraft X was flying was OTENS..ROD; cutting off the back side of my westbound Aircraft Y at FL320.  I would imagine that sector G-36 did not receive a pointout on Aircraft X since if they had; they should have referenced Aircraft Y as traffic.  I turned Aircraft X back to the left and stopped the aircraft's climb to try to avoid losing standard separation.  After I was comfortable with the separation; I turned Aircraft X back on course and climbed the aircraft.SWAP routes need to be consistent.  Also; when there is not a SWAP route program in place; aircraft need to not be filed for those SWAP routes.  Airspace and routes are designed for a reason and need to be followed unless otherwise coordinated.




Synopsis: A Cleveland Center (ZOB) Controller reports of a loss of separation attributed to Severe Weather Avoidance Plan SWAP0 and aircraft not being pointed out correctly.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CHO
Aircraft component: Electrical/Electronic Panel & Parts
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll the EICAS screen went black after 80 kts call. I was the Pilot Flying. Captain called for the reject. We transferred controls at 100 kts and safely slowed the aircraft to exit the runway and stopped. As we were rejecting; EICAS went from black to red x and then displayed codes. It then gave a red takeoff configuration warning. The readings were not normal at this time. By the time we stopped EICAS appeared to be working properly.




Synopsis: First Officer reported EICAS panel went black resulting in a rejected takeoff.