elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
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 D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After Departure ZZZ. Climbing through 4;000 feet MSL. Forward Cargo Door EICAS light illuminated. We stopped climb at 5;000 feet. Ran through the checklists. Elected to return to ZZZ. Requested priority handling as a precautionary measure. Returned to the ramp with no issues.


Second narrative: ZZZ-PHL Air turn back. Captain was Pilot Flying. Climbing out of ZZZ through 4000 feet AGL we received a Forward CARGO DOOR EICAS as well as CARGO DOORS light on the overhead panel. We requested to stop our climb at 5000 feet with ATC and slowed the aircraft to minimum safe speed. We completed the QRH procedure and elected to return to ZZZ. Using the ALTN prompt on the FMC and the divert prompt on the ACARS to alert company we prepared for landing in ZZZ. We requested priority handling with ATC and returned via radar vectors to the ILS Runway XX. We attempted to contact company via ramp frequency but were unable; asked for Approach Control assistance in communicating our return.


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported EICAS Forward CARGO DOOR and CARGO DOORS lights illuminated on climb out; causing and air turn back and precautionary landing.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger boarded with mask down but pulled [it] up before I could ask him to. He proceeded to pull down his mask and sit down. I asked him at that point to please pull up mask; it's airline's policy to wear mask over nose and mouth. He stared at me but pulled it up. Once in the air; during service; he had his face covering below his nose. I asked him if there was a reason he wasn't following Airline's policy; he replied 'Listen I don't know what you're talking about.' So I repeated the policy to him and asked him to pull up his mask. He was very defiant but pulled up his face covering.


Second narrative: Passenger X's mask was down when boarding I asked him to pull up; he complied. He got to seat and pulled it down again; I approached and he pulled it up. During snack service it was down again. I asked him why he couldn't keep his mask up; did he understand the Company's Policy? He stated he didn't know what I was talking about. I told him the policy is to wear his mask over his nose and mouth for the duration of the flight; did he understand. Passenger X pulled up his mask with attitude and said lady;' You don't want problems with me.'


Synopsis: Flight Attendants reported a passenger was not compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 202004
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During IFR training flight; in VFR conditions; after the missed approach at ZZZ; I climbed to 3;500 feet and proceeded north. I contacted ZZZ Approach and requested 4;000 feet. The Controller was busy and said he would get back to me. A minute later the Controller cleared me to 4;000 feet and direct to ZZZ VOR.The mistake was after I declared a missed approach at ZZZ; without further guidance from the Controller; I should have flown the published missed approach for the VOR Runway XX. Maximum altitude would have been 3;000 feet according to the published missed approach. Looking back; when the ZZZ Controller cleared me for the approach to VOR Runway XX; into ZZZ; he also instructed me to contact the airport advisor frequency. Due to COVID-19; the ZZZ Tower was closed and there was no advisory frequency published for the airport. In retrospect; I should have called the ZZZ Controller right back and informed them of this before I continued with the approach to ZZZ.In my defense; the Controller could have instructed me to fly the missed approach or given me other missed approach instructions before he cleared me for the approach to ZZZ and instructed me to change frequencies. There were no other airplanes flying nearby and conditions were VFR. The Controller made no mention of the deviation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported executing the wrong missed approach procedure after not being issued missed approach instructions. ATC cleared the pilot for the approach and issued instructions to contact airport advisory frequency; however there was no such frequency published for the airport and the Tower was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared the RIIVR2 to runway 25L. At the last minute; over RIIVR intersection; LAX changed runways to runway 24R. When we changed runways in the FMS over RIIVR; the FMS didn't sequence correctly. After trying to change runways with an incredible amount of step down fixes we were able to get things under control. My advice would be not to change runways on an aircraft at the initial fix due to sequencing in the FMS. We need more time to load the FMS with the proper information before starting an approach.




Synopsis: GLF5 Captain reported a very high workload resulted from a late runway change on arrival to LAX.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BDN.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E BDN
ATC / advisory: CTAF BDN
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I made 8; 5; and 2 mile calls to the southwest inbound. At 2 miles I called 2 miles to the southwest entering a left base for final. Right after I made that call; a plane called left downwind Runway 34. I looked up and the plane was almost on top of me. They called and asked what I was planning on doing. I told them I was landing 34. They made a sharp left turn over and in front of me. I called short final Runway 34 number 2. As I was landing another helicopter called me to tell me there was another plane coming in right behind me. I landed without incident. The other plane made the decision to go-around at 50 FT AGL.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot approaching BDN Runway 34 had a near miss with a fixed wing aircraft which then made a turn over and in front of it to land on the same runway the helicopter was approaching.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Oil Seals
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During 'my leg' shortly after the start of takeoff roll; with no abnormal indications in the cockpit; we had a call from the Flight Attendants and they stated that passengers were saying there was a fire in the left engine with flames of about 10-12 feet long coming out of the back of the engine. Captain then immediately initiated a flawless abort at just under 80 knots. Not knowing at that point exactly what was going on yet; I again reviewed/scanned all the cockpit indications and saw nothing abnormal. I then notified tower that we were aborting and they instructed us to exit the runway to the right/northwest side away from the terminal. Since we had no indications of any fire Captain initially decided to not declare an emergency while we continued to assess the situation but we did ask for the Fire Department to respond. We also shut down the engine initially just as a precaution and also left the flaps down in case we did get indications of a fire and need to execute an emergency evacuation. We ran the Emergency Evacuation checklist initially as well. We also ran the Brake Cooling checklist too just to be sure. After the Fire Chief cleared us we were towed back to a gate. Afterward a mechanic showed us a picture from the back end of the engine showing oil puddling in the bottom of the engine cowl and some sort of 'O-ring' or something that he said had failed. Both engines had just been serviced with oil before our flight. What amazed me the most was the short time it took from the start of the takeoff roll to the time we were notified in the cockpit considering the Flight Attendants didn't see it themselves and were just relaying info from a group of passengers. It seemed to me to be a textbook case of teamwork or crew coordination and communication between the front end and the back end in a critical phase of the flight.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported rejecting the takeoff at about 80 knots after a Flight Attendant notified the crew about flames from an engine tailpipe detected by passengers. A failed oil seal was found.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working LC3 during full triple departures. My runway was Runway 27R. My heading was a RNAV heading called SLAWW. I launched an Air Carrier X 'RNAV to SLAWW; Runway 27R cleared for take off.' Air Carrier X read back their clearance correctly. Approximately 0.5 miles off the departure end; Air Carrier X started turning left. SLAWW is a straight out heading; I believe 272 degrees. I noticed this; and asked Air Carrier X 'verify you are flying to SLAWW; straight out?' They said affirmative; and started turning right immediately towards SLAWW. During this time; there was Air Carrier Y airborne off of Runway 28. I yelled out to LC5; and said Air Carrier X is correcting and turning right. LC5 had my aircraft in sight. If I hadn't caught this when I did; this could have been a catastrophe. Later after speaking with the pilot from Air Carrier X; they had reported a malfunction in their FMS. The only thing I can recommend is this: Pilots have to realize; when they fly out of Atlanta; there is always someone to your left and right; airborne as well. Turning to a heading that is not assigned can lead to people dying. If there was truly a problem with their FMS; the pilot should have taken corrective action immediately. As far as airspace configuration is concerned: If we had more exaggerated headings; this kind of thing would not occur. But; right now on a westbound operation; two of our headings are only separated by 12 or 13 degrees; from different runways. This makes the window of opportunity to catch a pilot deviation very small. When you depart from three different runways; in my opinion; the headings should be much farther apart. This is not the first time I have caught an aircraft turning the wrong way during trip departures. In fact it is the third. Each time if corrective action was not immediately taken; a mid air collision was likely to occur. What is it going to take to make an operation safe in the FAA? Can we change our headings to make it safer?




Synopsis: ATL Controller described a near serious conflict event when departure traffic failed to comply with the issued route; the Controller suggesting more exaggerated turns to affect separation more quickly and be more easily identified by ATC.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Glider Tow
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Near miss between piper PA-28 tow plane and glider approximately 2 miles west of gliderport. Both aircraft originated at same gliderport. At approximately 1800 AGL; clear skies visibility 10+ sun very high and behind/above the glider.  My Pawnee was climbing at the usual wide open throttle about 500 fpm at 80 mph with path crossing angle about 150 degrees nose to nose between my aircraft and the conflict sailplane. Sailplane had been towed to approximately 2500 AGL by another tow plane and appeared at my left 11 o'clock slightly high with zero angle rate.  Both glider instructor and I took evasive action. I believe the glider crew field of view where I approached the sailplane must have been obstructed by glider structure.  Very close to the merge; glider instructor broke right and up and I broke right and down.  Closest approach was in the order of three hundred feet radially; maybe less.  Target traffic acquired considerably later than I would have wished. [Sailplane] on tow w/instructor and student behind my Pawnee recognized the conflict a few seconds in advance just before the merge and released. My clearing scan must have broken down for a short time. There were about 4 total gliders operating with two Pawnee tows.  We tow pilots had been doing a good job of staying about 180 out of phase...worked hard at keeping situational awareness of the gliders in the air and pattern and getting the three gliders in the air without conflict. Both tow pilots cooperated with occasional radio calls; keeping one another in sight during a busy time. My tows totaled 13 that day with 11 2500 ft tows and two 4000 ft tows...the other tow pilot got 15 tows. Ceiling and vis and sun not a significant factor but there was a minor distraction of a large flock of soaring/migrating turkey vultures in the area that we shared the airspace with. The sailplane crew was likely doing a training maneuver which might have required their composite scan to be more inside the sailplane than usual.  All occurred in class e airspace




Synopsis: PA-28 tow pilot experiences a NMAC with a sailplane flying in the opposite direction. Both pilots take evasive action and the glider under tow releases.
Date: 201708
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just after takeoff we got the Spoliers Ext EICAS Msg. We knew we had an MEL (Auto Speed Brake System) and could expect to see the 'Auto Speed Brake' EICAS Msg. We did not feel any buffeting on climb out and assumed there was a fault in the rigging of the spoiler handle and continued the climb to cruise. Once at cruise we noticed the control yoke turned a couple degrees to the left. It then came to our attention that maybe one of the spoilers was not completely stowed. The Captain coordinated to have me go back to the cabin to take a look at the wings to see if we could see anything. At this point I noticed the spoilers on the right wing were not completely stowed. We went through the pilot awareness section in the QRH which did not give us any detailed courses of action. We then contacted Maintenance Control and Dispatch to discuss the issue. The aircraft was flying normally and we all agreed continuing the flight was the safest course of action. The spoilers did manually deploy on landing.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported a Spoiler EICAS message after takeoff and observed spoilers floating in cruise. The flight continued to destination without incident.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Positional / Directional Sensing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I briefed the visual and set the localizer course and frequency for Runway 16L in the Number Two NAV. We accepted the visual approach clearance after calling the runway in sight and I armed the localizer. I was watching the runway anticipating the autopilot to capture the localizer for 16L. Right as ATC started calling us to tell us we had gone through the final approach course; I noticed that the localizer needle had already swung to the opposite side of where it should be for the runway I was looking at. Simultaneously the autopilot was beginning its slow bank to turn and intercept it. I disconnected the autopilot; corrected our course and landed without further incident.I believe that I had become complacent and quickly advised that I had the field in sight thinking I was looking at the correct runway.... It didn't even occur to me to double check I hadn't mistaken it for the parallel runway. If I don't let myself get complacent...and double check my perceptions of what I think is real; it would help prevent these sorts of incidents. If I rely on multiple sources to corroborate the facts before deciding; then these types of errors would probably decrease.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer on a visual approach backed up by the localizer; overshot the runway by lining up on a parallel runway. A slow to intercept autopilot was a factor in not recognizing the error.