elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working this flight and was accomplishing a bird strike inspection and was almost blasted with vomit from a passenger that was allowed to stand on platform between aircraft and jetbridge with canopy retracted. This just seems be all wrong to me; for a crew to allow a passenger to stand where he was; off the aircraft to vomit numerous times onto ground; that's my work area; where I work; it's disgusting; then allow the passenger to re-board and fly out sick next to other passengers. Who knows if the passenger has a disease of some sort; after reading the protocol to follow from CDC; the incident wasn't handled properly; isn't this a public health issue. Then the vomit was allowed to stay on ground for about 3 hours; no concern for clean-up; till a midnight crew chief refused to accomplish any maintenance on aircraft from that gate.




Synopsis: Maintenance technician reported a passenger being allowed to vomit from the jet bridge to the ramp below then board the aircraft and depart.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During roll out after landing. The aircraft's left brake locked and slowly pulled the aircraft to the left. The aircraft completed a slow ground loop and came to rest beside the runway. The aircraft was not damaged. Runway edge lights X3 may have been damaged - unknown.


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


Synopsis: Globe Swift pilot and instructor reported the left brake malfunction on landing resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing in ZZZZ with a faulty weather radar. We turned on the APU clearing the runway with a five minute taxi to the gate. We informed Maintenance Control airborne of our radar issue; and contract maintenance technicians were there when the boarding door was opened. After a couple minutes speaking to contract maintenance and while deplaning we began to smell a sweet odor followed by dirty socks smell; which began to intensify. We immediately shut off the APU bleed to stop contaminating the aircraft. After deplaning the Flight Attendant 3 in the back of the aircraft had the same experience.  Maintenance troubled shot and found leaking oil in the seal of the APU duct.  They requested us to return to the aircraft and upon reaching the jetbridge we could smell the dirty sock smell immediately at the top of the jetbridge and stronger as we got to the aircraft door. Maintenance also tried to cover the smell with air freshener.  We told them this was unacceptable and the odor irritated my nose and throat at this point. We informed Maintenance Control we would not be performing an engine runup as this had led to serious incapacitation previously at [company name].




Synopsis: A320 pilot reported a 'dirty socks' fumes event during passenger deplaning. Maintenance determined the fumes were caused by an APU oil leak.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: R90.TRACON, NE
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E R90
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was given an IFR clearance off of a satellite airport via Flight Service with an initial altitude of 4;000 feet. The aircraft departed and appeared to make a right hand turn in a slow climb and contacted me at 2;300 feet in a higher MVA (4;000 feet). The airport has an obstacle departure procedure.Issue a heading to fly when entering controlled airspace.




Synopsis: An aircraft departed an airport with a clearance received from a Flight Service Station. The aircraft did not comply with the published departure procedure and turned while still 1;700 feet below the minimum vectoring altitude.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Cessna 172 was on final and the banner tow was on a high slow left base for runway 25. We were holding short of runway 25. The Cessna 172 landed and taxied clear of runway 25. The banner tower aircraft was on final and I thought there was enough room to depart. I told my student to immediately takeoff. The banner tow aircraft was dropping the banner towards the departure end of the runway between the taxiway and the grass. As we were taking off; I had misjudged the speed of the banner tow aircraft dropping the banner. As we rotated; the banner tow aircraft was 200 ft. above us and descending. The banner tow aircraft then said on the CTAF 'do you have me in sight? I'm right above you'. I repeated by saying 'yes we have you in sight'. The contributing factors were the banner tow aircraft entering the pattern on a left base to runway 25 as opposed to a 45 degree entry for 25; poor judgement on my part; and an invulnerability attitude towards the banner tow aircraft. Now; I don't know if I had broken a regulation but there was a loss of separation between us and the banner tow aircraft. In addition; the incident took place at an uncontrolled Class G airport.




Synopsis: When the instructor pilot aboard a C172 misjudged the spacing between a landing Cessna and a following banner tow plane entering the pattern on a left base to drop the banner he told his student to takeoff immediately. During their initial climbout from the non-towered airport the pilot of the banner two advised on CTAF that they were climbing immediately below him.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Logbook Entry; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I have made a mistake on the Deferred in Place (DIP) for Aircraft X; Engineering Change Release Authorization (ECRA) X.The 8110-3 is good 12 months; but mistakenly; I asked planning to contact us after 24 months for revised ECRA.As of DATE X (2019) the aircraft had a total of 25;904 total aircraft flight cycles.As of today the aircraft the aircraft has 26;568 total aircraft flight cycles.The aircraft has been over flown by 664 Flight Cycles.The aircraft is in storage at ZZZ.We have received the revised 8110-3 for stage 2 and 3.The initial inspection is required at 32;041 Total Aircraft Flight Hours.As of today the aircraft the aircraft has 26;568 total aircraft flight cycles.So we haven't skipped any required inspection.




Synopsis: Technician reported an aircraft in storage had an inspection come due without being placed back in service.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Lead Technician
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: A fellow Mechanic and I were performing a high power engine run. Debris was thrown from the ramp behind the aircraft and struck another aircraft parked on the ramp. Ramp behind the runup area is falling apart and needs repair.


Second narrative: [A fellow Mechanic] and I performed engine runs on aircraft per the task card. All checks were good. Four days later I was asked by my supervisor who ran the aircraft. He notified me that damage occurred to another carrier's aircraft parked on their ramp. I told him we were on our designated run pad and performed the tasks required. I was unaware that debris from the aft area of the ramp; which is coming apart; was being blown into the aero flight aircraft. I do not know extent of damage to other aircraft. Clean up the unused areas of FOD from ramp space we do not use.


Synopsis: Two mechanics report that after high powered engine runs; debris from the poorly maintained ramp surface damaged another aircraft.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
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
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In level cruise flight with right engine generator on MEL; APU shut down with APU fault message. Contacted Dispatch and diverted to ZZZZ for an overweight landing.


Second narrative: Dispatched with inoperative main engine generator on MEL. APU started at gate; planned to run APU the entire flight per MEL. APU faulted and shutdown in cruise. Dispatch and [Maintenance Control] on SAT phone decided ZZZZ best divert field. Proceeded to ZZZZ; [requested priority handling] to land 25;000 lbs. overweight and avoid having to dump fuel. Touchdown at 150 fpm; all entered into logbook. I was [Relief Pilot] on the flight; recalled from 1st break. Assisted with monitoring the flying pilot and communicated with cabin team and ZZZZ.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported APU failure during cruise resulting in a diversion.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GTF.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E GTF
ATC / advisory: TRACON GTF
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to ILS crossing FAF and airspeed indicator started to decrease as [I was] descending. [I] pushed nose over to increase speed and realized pitot must have frozen over. Reached for CB's and switched [them on and off] to re-energize and was blown off localizer and descended [below] localizer minimums. I tried to activate iPad map function to verify position adding distraction.Was alerted by Tower they had an alarm for low altitude and to climb. I had ground contact and proceeded to airport and landed. Later told to call Tower and informed they would have to report to supervisor.Felt pressure to meet appointment time.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported being alerted to a low altitude situation on approach to GTF after his pitot/static system exhibited symptoms of frozen blockage.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On Day 3; I flew as pilot in command [of] a local flight with two family members; and a personal/business friend as passengers. A violation of FAR 61.57 may have occurred on Day 3. I fly fixed wing aircraft and helicopters as pilot-in-command. While I had flown the fixed wing aircraft several times in the 90 day period preceding Day 3; my flights of the helicopter in the 90 day period preceding Day 3 may not be sufficient to satisfy FAR 61.57. In anticipation of the flight; I had flown the helicopter as pilot in command on Day 1. During the Day 1 flight to ZZZ; I made 4 to 7 practice takeoffs and landings and conducted various maneuvers including pedal turns. This Day 1 flight also included flight at near cruise speed and flight at altitudes up to 800 feet to 1;000 feet AGL. There were no abnormalities observed. Nor did I experience any difficulty maneuvering or controlling the aircraft. I then took off again and flew to my home landing site where I had performed takeoff and landings approximately 10 times per year for 10 years. On Day 3; the planned flight with passengers was conducted.I am concerned about whether I have complied with the three takeoff and landing requirement of FAR 61.57. When I conducted the flight on Day 3; I presumed that the Day 1 flight was sufficient to establish compliance with FAR 61.57. However; upon review of the flight and the regulation; I am uncertain as to whether compliance was established by the Day 1 flight although it included maneuvers. To avoid this issue in the future; compliance can be established by recording detailed flight information needed to establish currency; reviewing records of flights for compliance; and conducting full takeoff and landing sequences in the helicopter to establish currency.Contributing factors would include disruption of normal flying routines due to COVID-19.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying in possible violation of FAR 61.57 attributed to COVID-19 related disruptions.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly before dusk we were pushing back for a flight.  As we started to pushback; about 40 yards into the push; the tug driver reported he could see fluid coming from the back of the aircraft.  I requested he tow us back into the gate; so I could investigate.  Once back into the gate I ask the First Officer to brief the passengers that we are checking out a possible fluid leak.  I then went to the aft of the airplane and noticed the fluid was fuel.  My concern at this point was to get the APU shut down to prevent a fire. I went back to the cockpit and briefed the First Officer.  We asked to have ground power hooked up. While this was taking place the First Officer went to look at the leak. I was preparing to shutdown the APU.  The APU then shutdown on its own and a LO APU BTL light caution message appeared.  I then wanted to evacuate the passengers.  I ask ground personnel if we could have the passengers use the outside stairs. I was informed security had to open that door.  I could see this would take too much time. I had them hook up the jet bridge and deplane. They did so. At no time did I see or have a fire indication other than the BTL LO message.  The First Officer reported to me that he heard the bottle pop.  He also did not see the fire. This happened very quickly and we had the people off as fast as possible. The entire event took around 6 minutes.  I then called our Dispatcher and was transferred to Maintenance Control.  I reported the situation to them and Dispatch. At this point I still did not know we had a fire but thought there may have been.  I talked with Contract Maintenance and they said the did not see a fire or signs of a fire.  We were then released and sent to the hotel for the night.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 ground crew reported an aft fuselage fluid drainage during pushback so the Captain requested a tow to the gate where an apparent APU fuel leak was detected followed by an APU auto-shutdown and a LO APU BTL alert.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure the aircraft required excessive RWD [Right Wing Down] roll trim in cruise and the control yoke was turned to the right about 20 degrees. We did not observe any indication of spoilers deployed on the PFCS [Primary Flight Control System] display panel or a spoiler push off button illuminated on the glare shield.After approximately 20 minutes in flight the aircraft rolled to the left abruptly and needed to be re-trimmed. Aileron trim was closer to normal position when trimmed and the roll control was normal. After further research it was determined from the flight [data] recorder system that one of the in- board roll spoilers did not stow on takeoff and was deployed approximately 20 degrees. I was the pilot flying during this takeoff and normally the flying pilot does not check the indication of the roll spoilers on power up. Better training of how the roll spoiler system works and how to determine if a spoiler is deployed would be beneficial to improved flight crew understanding.




Synopsis: When their Dash 8 required excessive right wing down roll trim after takeoff the flight crew trimmed as necessary and continued their flight. Later the aircraft rolled abruptly left and the trim returned to a more normal centered condition. Post flight FDR investigation revealed that one inboard roll spoiler had failed to stow on takeoff and; subsequently did stow itself resulting in the two trim anomalies.