elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During aircraft loading; main cargo door remained open allowing rain to enter aircraft and [shipping container] cans had water on tops of cans that ran down into the Center Accessory Compartment (CAC) causing random [cockpit] alerts like AOA; Slat EXT; GPWS; and RadAlt1. Maintenance inspected both FWD avionics and CAC and found water dripping down on numerous cannon plugs causing electrical problems. [Recommend to] Keep aircraft doors closed during rain events and dry cargo cans prior to loading.


Second narrative: In aircraft for approximately 90 minutes during loading in rainy conditions. The captain noted intermittent alerts for AOA; GPWS; Slat Disag; and Radar Altimeter over a period of approximately 30-45 minutes. Concerned about water in either the Avionics or Center Accessory Compartments (CAC); we called Maintenance. Maintenance determined there was water dripping on equipment Cannon plugs in the Center Accessory Compartment. They subsequently informed us that Maintenance Control had downed the aircraft and a transload would be necessary. After being awake for 5 hours at this point; and realizing departure was probably another couple of hours away; plus 4 block hours to ZZZZ; I decided that I would not be safe to operate given I had only a couple of hours sleep prior to show time for the trip. I called in to Crew Scheduling and stated I was fatigued; and subsequently stated to the Duty Officer that I did not feel safe to operate given the circumstances.


Synopsis: A Captain and First Officer report that during aircraft loading operations; the Main Cargo Door on their MD-11 aircraft remained opened; allowing rain to enter the aircraft. Shipping containers (cans) were also loaded with tops covered with water that ran down into the Center Accessory Compartments (CAC) onto Cannon plugs causing random alerts of AOA; Slat Disagree; Slat EXT; GPWS and Radar Altimeter. Aircraft removed from service.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: 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: I was providing an instructional flight in Aircraft X and we were on a night cross-country flight to ZZZ from ZZZ1. My student made calls on ZZZ CTAF 15 NM; 10 NM; 5 NM; and once established on the 45 entry left downwind for Runway XX (active runway). No calls were made from the other aircraft; Aircraft Y; until we were on the final and he then said he was taking Runway XX and said he would expedite. Once; on short final; we could tell there was no way we would have safe distance between us and had just begin his takeoff roll; so we decided to take evasive action and go around; climbing to the right of the runway (left traffic). We continued our flight as normal with no other concerns; and Aircraft Y apologized to us several times and they seemed to be fine as well and continued their flight. I'm happy the outcome ended well for all of us; and it was a good learning lesson.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor on final approach to a non-towered airport reported initiating a go around due to a departing aircraft on the runway.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GRB.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C GRB
ATC / advisory: TRACON GRB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I believe there was a misunderstanding of whether the captain wanted me to descend to 2200 now or in the near future. I always use approach mode and the descent start when glideslope is captured. The Captain said if we don't we might have to go around if we are high.Approach into GRB; day VFR. I was the pilot flying. Descending in speed mode from FL230 down to 3000; 250 kts; boards fully deployed. Leveled at 3000; reported the field in sight then we were cleared for the visual to Runway 36. I armed approach mode and waiting to intercept the LOC and glideslope while configuring for landing. At that time the Captain tells me we need to descend to 2200 or we will be high. It was my first time in this airport and I was planning to intercept the GS at 3000. But I said ok 2200. Autopilot still on; I selected 2200 and started the descent; while initiating the descent I was looking outside and told the Captain 'what about this 835 ft tower outside. I would assume we were at 2900; not exactly sure since I was looking outside. At this point the Captain disconnected the autopilot and climb to around 3200. He was trying to get back to 3000 so I asked him if he wants the autopilot again he said yes; engaged it and we got back to 3000 while ATC asked us to verify our altitude and it was 3000. We intercepted the LOC after that and landed with no further issues.Use the ILS as backup as if it's IMC even in perfect VFR weather.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported initiating a descent from 3;000 feet early while on a visual approach to GRB Runway 36 at the Captain's suggestion. When the First Officer asked about the obstacle ahead the Captain took control and climbed back to 3;000 ft.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Denver was handing off two aircraft at FL350 on collision courses. Aircraft X was at FL350 south east bound crossing with Aircraft Y also at FL350. We had to reach out and request control for lower for Aircraft Y from Denver while both aircraft were still in their airspace to avoid a loss of separation 20 miles inside our airspace. Before we descended Aircraft Y we also had to coordinate with the sector below us for the descent in their airspace. Unsafe!Hold controllers accountable for knowingly handing two aircraft to an adjacent sector without approved separation.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported ZDV handed off two aircraft to his sector that were on a collision course.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As the APU stared and we were pushing back the chemicals they sprayed or use to clean the whole cabin it affected me as if I was sprayed on the face with it. My Vision was impaired as well as my breathing and heart rate went up. This was notice very quickly by the C Flight Attendant.If at any point I would have to evacuate the aircraft I wouldn't be able to assess the condition outside before opening the Aircraft Door as my vision was impaired by the strong chemicals used to clean the aircraft. And I wouldn't being able to read any of the gauges of any emergency equipment.I can only assume it was the chemical they used to clean the aircraft as they thoroughly clean every inch of that cabin and I was perfectly fine until the APU started and a woosh of air came to the back of the aircraft and it was inadvertently inhale by me.This event was also confirmed by the Company Doctor. I advised the Company Doctor that whenever I inhale through my nose I taste it in my mouth the following morning my lips; inside cheeks and including tongue were covered in blisters small bumps and swollen lips.This event was expressed to the company; I would think the company would launch some investigation as to what chemical were used to clean the aircraft or if something intentionally was sprayed without our knowledge. As of this date and time I have not heard from the company. The Company only acknowledged if I had attended the Company Doctor and how was I doing.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported that a chemical used to clean the aircraft resulted in the Flight Attendant becoming ill.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the takeoff roll; the First Officer called 80 KTS; followed by airspeed hesitation. I looked at my airspeed which was still increasing; the First Officer again called airspeed hesitation. At this point in time I had look at my airspeed indication which I remember being about 110-115 KTS; I then became fixated on the First Officer airspeed indication; which appeared to be stopped or failed on 90 KTS. We had no other warning or comparator warnings or indications of a problem. We did have; however; a large split in airspeed indication. I elected to reject the takeoff; I am certain I elected to reject below V1. However; at this point; I was not receiving call outs from the First Officer; who was unable to make calls; due to [the] failed airspeed indicator. The airplane was brought to a stop and we cleared the runway. I returned to the blocks to deal with our failed indicator. We had to wait for the brakes to cool.


Second narrative: On takeoff it was the Captain's leg and my airspeed indicator stagnated around 90 KTS. I called 'stagnation' followed by what appeared a momentary slight airspeed increase only for it to stagnate again when I called 'stagnation' again. At which point I looked over at the Captain's airspeed indicator and it appeared to be around 120 KTS. The Captain noticing my airspeed indicator 'frozen' [and] aborted the takeoff. I noted what I thought was the airspeed on the Captain's airspeed indicator in order to be able to later reference the brake cooling chart. Because the brake indications showed 7;8;9 on the temperature gauges we elected to take the full hour on cooling and have maintenance check thermal plugs and tire integrity.


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported rejecting the takeoff at about 120 KTS when the First Officer's airspeed indicator hung.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff from Runway 34L we got an ATC Fault EICAS message. Tried to switch transponder from 2 to 1 but that did not resolve the EICAS message. At about 1;500 ft. AGL we got a TERR POS EICAS message. When we asked Departure Control if they saw any issues with our transponder they responded that they did not but they were suspecting 5G interference because many aircraft were reporting anomalies like ours. Both the ATC Fault and TERR POS EICAS messages went away after we climbed above FL 220.




Synopsis: Captain reported climbing out of DEN; EICAS fault of transponder and TERR POS part of the GPS system.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aerofoil Ice System
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While doing the weekly TKS system check; after running the system about 5 minutes I started to get eyes burning; smell inside the cockpit. After turning Off the TKS system; waited until the temperature became uncomfortable to open the overhead air vents. I started to get a bad headache; with eyes burning. The cockpit had a damp feeling; the problems lasted for about 30 minutes after completion of flight. I started the test the last 15 minutes in bound to an intermediate stop. We need to fine out how dangerous the TKS fluids are and what physical problems it will cause the pilot in the future.




Synopsis: A C208 pilot conducted the weekly five minute TKS anti-ice system check and experienced a damp feeling cockpit with an odor; his eyes burning and a headache which lasted about 30 minutes.
Date: 201808
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [Company reporting] system is not displaying our flight for selection. It never does with a return to gate. Tech should be fixed to allow for easier reporting.Rudder test on taxi out failed. [Maintenance Control] said it had happened a week prior. Return to blocks and new plane issued.Manual selection for [company reporting system] failed also.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a malfunction causing a return to the gate; then had problems reporting it on their EFB.
Date: 201409
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL380 Right pack overheat/off. Went to the book. First problem is that the book is confusing. There is an overheat procedure; there is an off procedure; there is not one for both. Since Off was on top of EICAS we started working that. Two minutes into this the SAME THING happened to the left pack. Now there is a 'both packs off' procedure that enters the equation. Used system knowledge; [advised ATC]; and started emergency descent. First Officer kept working the checklist. At some point I exercised emergency authority and hit the reset buttons; even though I was outside of the QRH loop. Both packs reset; EICAS clean; emergency over. Leveled at FL240. The cabin never reached 10;000 feet; although it go VERY close. Outside of the serious descent the pax and FA's  were not overly concerned. Good. I have to go back to the QRH and Monday morning quarterback myself; but at this point I can say the QRH was adding to the problem rather than helping. Here's my bigger beef. Called Maintenance Control the next morning and found out that they are ripping everything out of this airplane. Good. What I did not like to hear is that it did the same thing two weeks ago; resulting in a similar high dive. I would have liked to have known that; and I would have read the QRH before we left if you get my drift.




Synopsis: B757 Captain experienced a pack overheat at FL380 and the pack shuts down. Two minutes into the QRH procedure the other pack does the same thing. An emergency descent is initiated while the First Officer continues to work the problem using the QRH. At some point the Captain elects to push the pack reset buttons; without specific QRH direction and the packs reset. The Captain discovers later that the aircraft had a history of pack failures that was not available to the flight crew.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We chose to fly the RNAV X 28R into Boise. We briefed the approach in cruise including the 180 speed restriction at CUBAR. We flew the plane through CUBAR at 210 by mistake. Shortly afterward we heard the audible alert 'TOO LOW TERRAIN.' We briefly discussed and concluded the alert was a result of our high speed; and we could see there was no terrain in or near our flight path. Our discussion set us behind the airplane. We promptly slowed and put the gear down to configure to land. The gear came down and we continued to configure to flaps 10. Once we were on final we made the decision to go missed because we were not in a normal position to land (not configured by 1;000 ft).As the flaps retracted through 10 degrees and the gear was raising we received another audible: 'TOO LOW GEAR.' Our missed was successful and our second approach on the RNAV X 28R was flown well within the speed restrictions to a safe landing.The VFR weather in Boise distracted me from monitoring the speed restrictions along the approach. It is a requirement to follow speed restrictions on approaches that one is cleared to fly. I knew that then and I know it now. This situation is a great example of the exact reason to follow those restrictions. It is easy on VFR days to neglect the requirements set on an approach.Our responsibility to go missed when not in a normal position to land is an example of the value of following our procedures.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a GPWS terrain alert on arrival into BOI; followed by recognition of an unstabilized approach that resulted in a go-around.