elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: External Power
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: On arrival to Gate after taxi; requested external electric connection. Lead Mechanic connected one [electrical power] line. I asked for second; and Lead Mechanic indicated second [power line] was Out of Service (OTS). I explained B-777 requires two external connections; he said he'd never heard this; but after a discussion agreed to get a gas-powered Generator KILOVOLT-AMPERES (KVA) to provide second source of [electrical] power.  [Recommend] adding to Ground Handling Manual that two external power connections are required. Remind/train all Ramp and Maintenance [Personnel] on minimum requirements of B-777 to have two external connections. Provide two KVA connections at ALL B-777 capable gates. (Currently several B-777 gates at ZZZ only have one [electrical power] cable connection.). Training; Documents and Maintenance Bulletins. Evening shift.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports about his air carrier not making available a minimum of two external power electrical cords at many of their terminal gates that service their B-777 aircraft. He also recommends adding that information to their Ramp and Maintenance Aircraft Training; documentation; and Maintenance Bulletins.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Bonanza 36
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An E190 was descending to 9;000 FT from 10;000 FT. A VFR overflight BE36 reported level at 8;500 FT; altitude varied by 100-200 FT at times. Both aircraft were issued traffic as targets were likely to merge. At approximately 2 miles lateral separation the BE36 reported the E190 in sight. The E190 was immediately informed that traffic had them in sight; and response was 'We are responding to an RA'. The aircraft did not say they were climbing; but I believe they stopped the descent and climbed 100 FT-200 FT. At the time the BE36; even though he had reported being level at 8;500 FT; altitude indicated 8;600 FT. I don't believe they were at the time; but aircraft may have been inside Bravo airspace. The BE36 was not instructed to maintain visual separation from the E190. The supervisor was not immediately available; but was notified about 2-3 minutes after the incident. I reported to the supervisor that the E190 had responded to an RA; but that I didn't think there was an evasive maneuver; just decreased rate of descent. After thinking about the situation more; I believe the E190 may have climbed 100-200 FT. I should have stopped the E190 at a higher altitude since the BE36 was indicating 100 FT-200 FT difference; anticipating that there could possibly be a TCAS event. I think more frequent training and actually hearing from pilots how TCAS works could help controllers be more aware of such a situation. Also more training; on how if a pilot reports a specific altitude and has the right altimeter setting and altitude differs by 100 FT how does this have an effect on TCAS.




Synopsis: L30 Controller described a TCAS RA event between a descending air carrier and a VFR aircraft in level flight. The VFR aircraft observed the air carrier but was not instructed to maintain visual separation.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MQY.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MQY
ATC / advisory: Tower MQY
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While returning to MQY; I made an initial call approximately 8 nm southeast of the airport where I was told to make straight-in for Runway 32 and to report a 3 nm final. I backed up the straight in with the ILS 32 even though it was VMC. Upon reaching 3 nm; [I] made the report; in which we were cleared to land Runway 32. Around 1;000 ft MSL still on the glidepath; about 1 nm final; received a traffic alert from the Skywatch system onboard the aircraft. Being close to landing; I hit the cancel traffic alert since it is normal to get an alert on short final when another aircraft is holding short of the runway. Upon looking back outside; I noticed there was a Cessna appearing to finish a right base to final turn same altitude to 100 ft below us and about 1;000 ft in front of us. Slightly shocked that there was another airplane so close; [I] initiated a go-around; side stepping to the right of the aircraft and made a call to ATC. At this time; the aircraft landed on Runway 32 and ATC attempted to make contact with the aircraft; [but] the aircraft gave no reply as it taxied across the other runway and into the ramp.Recapping the scenario; as pilots flying in controlled airspace such as a Class Delta; we grow complacent that all aircraft are in contact with ATC. This shows that an aircraft can take a turn early or just not communicate with anybody and come into close proximity with your aircraft. The eyes outside should remain on high alert no matter what airspace you are flying in.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported executing a go-around after spotting a conflicting aircraft on short final to the same runway.
Date: 202011
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 Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I repeatedly asked Employee X to place his mask over his mouth and nose at least 10 times.  Even the Lead Cleaner asked him to comply and he refused. The Captain came off the flight and asked him; he said he can't breathe with it on and still refused to cover his mouth and nose. Then he put it somewhat over his mouth; but would not cover his nose. He totally ignored his Lead Supervisor and both myself and the Captain.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported an aircraft cleaner employee would not comply with face mask policy.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There are 3 TMUs [Should be TMC - U is the unit; C is a coordinator] on the floor today; but they are not helping with problems with the traffic flow at sector R4. Unsafe work conditions result because of the flow control without any call for release from the outer island airports. I am concerned there will be a catastrophic incident in the near future.I was working R4/D4 combined during a 2 hour busy rush period. Flow control was established at 15 miles in trail and 250 knots at the fix SAKKI; where all aircraft has to cross at 060. No D-side was available to me; due to our short staffing. I was under the assumption that one of the three TMUs [TMCs] on the floor would help with the flow control; but I was sadly mistaken. In sector 4; I can only have 4 aircraft in my airspace with the restriction of 15 miles in trail. OGG is in my airspace; and OGG has an automatic release of aircraft. I was too busy to have an automatic release of aircraft when I was already handling my 4 planes at 14 miles in trail. In addition; I had aircraft coming from sector 7 that were deviating; due to weather conditions.Also note that not one of the three TMUs [TMCs] is certified on any of the center sectors (not R2/D2; not R3/D3; not R7/D7; not R5/D5; nor R4/D4). How are the TMUs [TMCs] able to help center controllers with the flow control; if not a single one of them is able to fully understand the sector?I am beyond annoyed with this ongoing situation. Each day; we have unrealistic flow control at the center sectors; without any help from the TMUs [TMCs]. I'm not asking for much; just that they get on the phone and take care of the call for releases at OGG; ITO; and KOA. There are three of them. One or two or three can handle that.Have one of the three TMUs [TMCs] do a call for release with the neighbor island airports when there is a 15 mile in trail flow control at Honolulu Approach (HNL).




Synopsis: HCF Controller reported of the lack of help from the Traffic Management Unit. Three Traffic Management Coordinators were on the floor helping; but according to the reporter did nothing to help. None of the TMC's were certified to work any of the areas where the flow control problems were.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We began to configure early for the approach and landing on Runway 15 in ASE. Upon selecting Flaps 15; the Stall Warning annunciator and Flap Annunciator illuminated. This indicated a flap asymmetry. We retracted the flaps; and requested a delay vector from Aspen Approach.  The flying pilot continued hand flying the aircraft while I consulted the checklist. The checklist indicated that  we would be required to do a flaps inoperative approach and landing. This would increase the landing  distance by 45%.  Due to the tailwind on the approach; the steepness of a normal approach in Aspen; the inability to fully configure to land; and the availability of a long runway pointed into the wind at out departure airport; we decided to return to our departure airport.  We changed our destination and were given a return clearance. After discussing the approach with my Captain; we requested vectors outside the final approach fix for the ILS. This would give us sufficient time to stabilize our speed and get configured before landing. The flight continued without any other issues.


Second narrative: We asked for delay vectors; looked up and accomplished the appropriate checklist; and made the decision together that a steep descent into Aspen and a landing with a 6 knot tailwind was ill advised. We then asked ATC for a return clearance. We returned to the departure airport and accomplished a no flap approach and landing without further event.


Synopsis: A BAE-125-850XP flight crew reported STALL IDENT and FLAP annunciations indicating a flap asymmetry during landing preparation at ASE and so after completing the QRH procedure they returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Parking Brake
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Chalked left main wheel prior to hand propping the airplane. The plane started with no difficulties. Climbed onto the Left wing to verify throttle setting and advance the magnetos from Left to Both. Climbed down from the wing and removed chalk. After removing the chalk the plane began to roll forward and the hand brake did not hold the plane. Any attempts to stop the airplane from rolling failed. Plane traveled down the alleyway veering to the right and struck the hangars where the plane came to a sudden stop.




Synopsis: Ercoupe 415 pilot reported the parking brake failed while hand propping the aircraft resulting in the aircraft rolling into a hangar.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out from ZZZ we noticed a strong odor that I would describe as a PACK (Pneumatic Air Conditioning Kit) odor; specifically a hot PACK. We had no ECAM messages. I consulted the QRH and felt the Cabin Air Poor Quality procedure may help even though we had no complaints from the cabin. After running the procedure; the odor dissipated and air quality became acceptable; we went back to a normal configuration. We also submitted a [maintenance request] for maintenance to take a look at the issue upon arrival in ZZZ1.On descent the odor started to return though not as strong; we landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A-320 Captain reported strong odor of hot PACK briefly during climb and descent with no other indications.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taxiing out to Runway XX in ZZZ as we were making the turn to [taxiway] XX from [taxiway] YY we heard a noise (nothing excessively loud or alarming to us or the jumpseater). We straightened out the nosewheel and brought it to a stop. Everything seemed normal so we called to continue taxi. At this point after straightening out we didn't think we could still make the turn on to XX so we requested to cross Runway XX and taxi via ZZ. The taxi out felt smooth and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. On takeoff around 120 knots tower said ramp called and wanted them to notify us we had lost a nose tire on taxi out. We didn't fully hear what they said and we were in the high speed environment; so once we selected gear up and got the plane flying we called them back. Tower said that Ramp had confirmed we lost a nose tire on taxi out. We continued to clean up the airplane on profile while the jumpseater looked up the Tire Fail QRH procedure. We all discussed the possible options. As a team we came to the conclusion our best option was to continue to ZZZ1 (longer runway; better weather; reduce aircraft weight). I continued to fly while the captain coordinated with [Operations]. At top of climb the captain took over as pilot flying and I took over the radios. We requested a tug be waiting for us as we were going to stop on the runway and get towed in. Once we got to ZZZ1 Approach we [advised of our issue] and landed uneventfully. We were inspected by Fire/Rescue and were towed into the gate.[We should] do a quick recheck of the CONFIG page as we take the runway. Once we were airborne and notified we saw on the CONFIG page the right nose gear symbol was gone.




Synopsis: First Officer reported that on takeoff; a nose wheel assembly departed the aircraft; requiring an emergency landing at destination airport.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine 1 compressor stall required in flight shutdown. All ECAM actions were followed and First Officer was Pilot Flying. Priority handling was requested with ZZZ Center and we were given direct to ZZZ1. Dispatch was notified and FA communication was established. After being handed off to ZZZ1 approach we were vectored for an approach to RWY XX. ALL QRH follow-up procedures were completed and passenger PA accomplished. ZZZ1 approach assigned a discreet tower frequency that was monitored by ZZZ1 fire and rescue as well. Uneventful landing and roll out followed by inspection by ZZZ1 fire equipment in the east hold bay. After receiving the all clear we taxied to the open gate.The QRH has very good procedures for FA communications but a few salient bullet points should be added for the passenger PA announcements. All company and ATC people involved were at the highest professional level which reduced the overall stress of the situation.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported compressor stalls required the in flight shut down of the #1 engine. Priority handling was requested and the aircraft diverted to make a precautionary landing.