elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in a direct cruise from ZZZ toward ZZZ1 and was aware of traffic to my 3 o'clock ten miles in front of me on heading in the same general direction. I didn't think anything of it as he was 500 ft. below me and still a ways away. As I got closer I had my descent profile pulled up on my GPS to my destination. When the profile said to start my descent at 500 ft. per minute; I did not notice any traffic by visual cues and started down. I then checked and saw the same traffic as before on ADS-B what seemed to be right below me. I quickly banked over to the left away from the traffic and headed in a different heading to create separation. I would say the closest we came together was within a distance of in between 0.5 to 1 mile laterally and within 300 ft. vertically according to the ADS-B read out on the traffic page. I never had a visual until after the evasive action was taken. I was distracted at the time of the incident and did not see the traffic before I started my descent. It seemed like a close call; however I do not remember ever seeing a traffic alert that usually pops up on the GPS or Fore-Flight. It definitely seemed like it was close enough; however I was glad to have seen the traffic on the map so I could take evasive action. I am not sure if the other traffic ever saw me or not. He was at 5;000 ft. while I started my descent from 5;500 ft. I assume the traffic was on an IFR flight plan but I am not sure; he never deviated from his course. I was the faster aircraft and therefore he had the right of way; however I did not see him as he was below me under my right wing.




Synopsis: Mooney-20C pilot reported airborne conflict during descent with another aircraft visible on ADS-B.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This flight is part of the second trip to be on a landing currency waiver. Landings expired [Date]. Waivers issued for the next two pilot trips. I have stated plainly to the training desk I want to regain my currency vs flying not current on waivers. One area of safety concern arose prior to this flight due to being non-current. Scheduling called the CA the morning of the flight asking to crew the leg ZZZ to ZZZ1 with just 2 pilots (CA and myself) because they could not find a replacement FO for the trip. CA agreed after checking with union contracts. Safety Issue: CA was unaware I would be arriving for work on a waiver. The CA should be notified well in advance instead of at sign in that a non-qualified pilot would be on their flight. The only way the CA found out I was on a waiver is when I notified him. To be clear: I was never assigned FO in the system. The situation was resolved without ever assigning me as FO. The safety issue is with the PIC being unaware they will have a non-qualified crew member.Issuance of this waiver is only made known to the non-current pilot. Other crew members are un-aware until sign in.This waiver should be rarely used vs the recent expanded use and it needs to be depicted plainly in schedules being visible to all crew.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported having a status as flying on a special wavier that was not reported by the company to the Captain before the flight.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb and cruise we had what we thought was continuous light chop. The chop did not subside and it seemed to us that the aircraft's pulsating/bumping movement was too rhythmic; too steady to be turbulence. We had flown the aircraft 3 legs already with no anomalies. My first concern was the rudder as the movement had a fishtail quality to it. ECAM F/CTL (flight control) page indicated ops normal on the rudder. However; the Captain noticed that the indicator (carrot) on the left outboard aileron was moving up and down rhythmically over a short range. The other seven aileron actuator indicators were near motionless. Flight control computers appeared normal; as did Yellow and Green hydraulics that powered the aileron.Convinced that we had a bad left outboard actuator we opted to [advise ATC] and land before the unit degraded further. The pulsing stopped upon flap extension during approach and landing and taxi was uneventful.




Synopsis: A330 First Officer reported the flight crew chose to divert to an alternate airport after noticing abnormal uncommanded aileron movement.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X was stubbed because the inbound Aircraft X was operating late. The flight was stubbed and our computer system electronically conditioned the call sign with a 'D'... Aircraft XD. this is the procedure per the Flight Manual. When the captain called for his clearance; ATC instructed him to change his call sign because using the delta suffix could cause confusion with a [different] airline flight. I manually changed the call sign to Aircraft XP. This didn't go smoothly and took a couple of attempts to get the call sign changed in the ATC system. I suggest we don't use the letter D when subbing a flight. I can't really think of a worse letter to use when there is an airline with the same name. We're asking for confusion.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher described a confusing situation that developed when his dispatching computer automatically assigned a 'D' suffix to the flight number of a stubbed flight taking the place of a late inbound flight with the same flight number. ATC rejected the 'D' suffix to avoid confusion with another carrier.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We did our clearance brief; flight brief; and departure brief. PDC; Route page 2; and LEGS pages were all viewed and briefed. All was confirmed on our iPads. On push back; we were asked which SID we were on and responded with the EEONS 3 as per our route. We were cleared to taxi to [Runway] 34R. Prior to takeoff; we were asked about our first fix. I was the pilot not flying and responded EEONS 3 NUGGS. We were then cleared for takeoff. On our climbout; we were queried as to our SID assignment. I responded the EEONS 3. The Controller indicated we were cleared via the EMMYS 3. After a bit of checking he informed us to fly the remainder of the EEONS3 and we switched frequencies. We went back to our PDC to confirm that we read it correctly. There was a change that was immediately above our route. EMMYS 3 was directly over the EEONS 3. We briefed the clearance off the PDC but the similarities were too subtle and the change was missed.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: Pilot reports of departure names and numbers that are too similar which causes confusion.
Date: 202102
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ gear was selected down but normal gear indications did not appear and there were no associated noises such as gear extending into slipstream; etc. PF (Pilot Flying) executed a missed approach and while being vectored we tried to lower the gear normally with the same indications and we got the L/G Gear Not Down locked ECAM. Accomplishing ECAM led us to the L/G Gravity Extension QRH and after accomplishing checklist the gear safely extended. We (advised ATC) and coordinated with Flight Attendants and Dispatch and ZZZ for subsequent runway closure and tow to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a landing gear malfunction.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Portable Extinguisher
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I entered aircraft and proceeded with preflight and safety check. Checked equipment in Lav; shut trash receptacle door and Halon fire extinguisher released its contents onto myself and dress. I immediately reported incident to Captain; he contacted ops and maintenance. I called Inflight Base Manager and he asked if I was ok to continue with schedule. I said I felt ok and needed to clean up and change uniforms. After breathing in the fumes I started to feel unwell; sweating and could taste the fumes when I swallowed; I decided I wasn't fit to fly. The Inflight Base Manager called scheduling. I was removed off of trip.




Synopsis: A SF-340 Flight Attendant preflighting her cabin; closed the LAV Trash Receptacle door and the Halon fire extinguishing agent discharged onto her. She was removed from the trip feeling ill and sweating with a foul taste when swallowing.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The controller advised me to enter a right base for runway 24 when I called from 5 miles [from the airport]. I directed my Archer toward a commonly used marker for the base leg. A short time later a Cirrus inbound from the west called to land. The controller advised me to head straight for the numbers. I responded that I preferred to land after the Cirrus. The controller advised me to circle. I made a counterclockwise standard-rate turn and saw the Cirrus over my right shoulder at about my altitude as we passed each other heading in opposite directions. I reported the Cirrus in sight and the controller directed me to follow it to land. When I rolled out of the turn; I couldn't find the Cirrus again; but I thought it must be well ahead of me. I searched for it without success and upon reaching the sand pit I informed the tower that I didn't see the Cirrus. The controller asked the Cirrus if he saw me and received an affirmative response. I then spotted the Cirrus off my left wing at about my altitude of 1000 ft and 500-1000 ft away. The controller advised the Cirrus to do whatever was necessary to avoid me and advised me to land.I made faulty assumptions: that the Cirrus was traveling much faster than I was and that our passing each other while traveling in opposite directions as I was making a standard-rate turn meant we would be well separated. I also made a third assumption of which I wasn't conscious at the time: that the Cirrus would fly a pattern of about the same size as mine. My faulty assumptions led me to conclude mistakenly that not seeing the Cirrus immediately after rolling out of my turn was neither unexpected nor a serious problem because the Cirrus was too far ahead to be a collision risk. Events proved me wrong. I should have informed the tower immediately after completing the turn that I no longer had the Cirrus in sight.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported an airborne conflict with a Cirrus during a visual approach to a Tower controlled airport. The PA28 pilot was told to circle and passed the Cirrus going the opposite direction and assumed both aircraft would not be in conflict and returned to the pattern.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in ETOPS cruise at night; flight attendants reported a fire in one of the rear galley ovens. They put out the fire using the water extinguisher and reported the incident to the flight deck. I personally was on break and returned to duty at the normal time; just a few minutes after the incident. I noticed no smoke or odors in the flight crew rest area or front part of the airplane. Smoke checklist was performed and after consultation with Dispatch; Maintenance Control and Chief Pilot; it was decided to safely press to destination.


Second narrative: During cruise; about halfway into the flight; the Flight Attendants called from the aft galley to say that one of the ovens was smoking heavily. They called back to say that there were flames in the oven and that they had used the fire extinguisher to put out the fire and also turned the power off to that oven. They asked permission to pull the circuit breaker for the oven. I gave them permission to pull the circuit breaker and to keep us apprised of the situation and to give us updates. We immediately notified dispatch and maintenance. The Flight Attendants called back a few minutes later to say that the fire was definitely out; there was a red glow inside the oven from residual heat; the smoke had dissipated; and that the oven was cooling off. They kept watch over the oven and it was cooling off rapidly. There was no further incident. When I went on my break; about thirty minutes later; I went to the back to check the status of the oven. The oven was cool and the Flight Attendants continued their watch over the oven until we landed. Upon landing; a Mechanic came to inspect the oven and he suspected a grease fire on the aft fan of of the oven. He gave me an engineering smoke/fumes questionnaire to fill out; which I did.The Flight Attendants did a great job taking care of the situation and I was very impressed with how they handled the situation.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported that the Flight Attendants reported an aft galley oven fire and were able to successfully extinguish the fire; allowing the flight to land safely at destination airport.
Date: 201302
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
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At the conclusion of obtaining the clearance; the Controller informed us that our wheels up time was two minutes past our scheduled departure time. He never asked us what time we could be wheels up. He just took it upon himself to ask us for wheels up time that was within two minutes of our scheduled departure time. On the taxi to [the] runway he told us to expedite our taxi.  A conversation with the Controller on the radio and the phone led me to believe that he didn't think he was rushing us to takeoff. Maybe he is correct 'technically;' but practically; he is wrong.  The threat here is clear.  Flight crews that are in a hurry are more likely to make mistakes.  I make sure my crew has the time they need to do their job. The last thing I; or really any flight crew; needs is a controller rushing the flight crew. It is the most common threat I see from ATC. Unfortunately; there are plenty of crews here who allow ATC to get them in a hurry.  As I have in the past; I will continue to stand my ground.  I am going to report controllers who rush me and other flights.   Perhaps the company can remind pilots somehow that letting anyone; be it a gate agent; dispatcher; or controller; rush them is a threat to safety.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain perceives Controller's request for a wheels up time within two minutes of the scheduled departure time and instruction to expedite taxi as 'pushing' the flight crew.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Both EFB's locked up while in precipitation static while descending in clouds on [RNAV arrival]; Copilot was flying. We were deviating for rain showers when both EFB's froze. Displays still worked; but no inputs on screens worked. Got out of seat to get paper backup charts stored in galley area. Bad time for major distraction.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported both EFBs froze up on an RNAV arrival; forcing the Captain to leave his seat to retrieve paper charts.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ground issued taxi clearance to Runway 22L via Bravo taxiway; then V taxiway to the 28R pad. As we taxied on V taxiway; First Officer and I noticed [a foreign air carrier] taxiing toward us. The First Officer then stated he's not stopping. I stopped our aircraft.When the [other aircraft] kept approaching us; I flashed our lights on and off to try and stop his movement toward us. The [other aircraft] never stopped. We both thought that our cockpit was going to be struck by the Airbus' left wing. The [aircraft] missed us only by a few feet.The [aircraft] cut the corner onto V taxiway which kept us from being struck. I advised ground control about the incident and that the Airbus came very close to hitting us. Ground control said that [the other aircraft] was told to give way to us. Had the [other crew] not deviated off the taxiway centerline; the left wing would have hit our aircraft.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a ground conflict with an Airbus which had been instructed to give way.