elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Tower, MD
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Vehicle requesting to access Runway 33L at departure end in the RSA (Runway Safety Area) and second vehicle checking RSL (Runway Surface Lights) and never cleared the runway while meeting up with other vehicle in RSA and exited vehicle and I allowed Aircraft X to land on Runway 33L.I should have used memory aid to remind me the vehicle never cleared the runway.




Synopsis: BWI Tower Controller reported allowing an aircraft to land while vehicles were on the runway.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was a FLG departure and a jet that I was trying to make room for in the MAIER arrivals.  Things were not working out as planned; so I started to vector additional aircraft.  I had a SDL landing aircraft cutting across my arrival stream that I had started down to 19;000 FT.  He was issued; '30 degrees left'; for traffic and the vector did not work as I intended either.  When I vectored Aircraft X off the arrival; I forgot to assign him an altitude to maintain.  Just about then; I had Aircraft Y depart PRC airport; as his Data Block auto acquired; he started flashing with the aircraft surrounding PRC airport.  There were about 5 other aircraft that I was not working.  I told him about the multiple targets in his vicinity but did not suppress the C/A's.  I could hardly see what I was doing due to the amount of flashing; I ended up highlighting aircraft to see what was going on.  At that time Aircraft X asked what altitude to maintain; I assigned 23;000 FT.  He started to flash with Aircraft Z who was out of 22;000 FT.  Aircraft Z was then given an additional left turn for the traffic to go further behind Aircraft X.  At the time the flashing caused by Aircraft Y's departure; took most of my attention and covered up the rest of my traffic; he was flashing with an aircraft that PRC Tower was working.  Maybe something could be done so that I know what the tower has issued as far as traffic goes.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller described a conflict event between two IFR aircraft at altitude when attention was distracted to an IFR departure in apparent conflict with PRC traffic.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On our third and final flight after an exceedingly long day with an early sign in; out of a remote co-terminal; (3 legs; with a 3 hour sit out of ZZZ1 having to leave my house at XA:00am to catch the shuttle) and dealing with mechanical issues; stressful delays; and upset passengers along the way; I became distracted when a dead heading crew member wanted to move his seat to a completely empty row in the unusually empty last flight; in order to increase social distancing.He moved to the exit row seat XX4; and was talking to me during boarding about changing seats; seniority; furloughs; and the general state of things. The boarding was very short and the lead flight attendant said to prepare; I had thought she meant the cabin; and she had actually meant the doors.She did the all call and I answered the phone but; being caught off guard; I failed to arm the doors; because I had still been talking to the deadheading crew member who would be working the return flight. Then I proceeded to head up to 2L and R; (which is my demo position;) to do the safety demo. During the demo the Captain called back to ask us to check the 2 and 3; L and R doors.I verified the 2 L and R doors were armed and went to check my doors (the 3 L and R doors;) and realized they were disarmed. I immediately corrected the situation by arming the doors; and called the cockpit to verify. The cockpit confirmed; and we resumed the safety demo.In the future I will NOT allow myself to become distracted from my door procedures by any and all outside influences. I have never failed to arm a door before; and realize now how easy it is to slip up on a long day when we let our guard down; and allow outside factors to affect us. I will practice constant vigilance in the future.Also; I will visually verify and crosschecked myself during the all call; to make certain that the doors are armed; and if I would have done that this time; instead of being distracted; I would have noticed that the doors were Not in fact armed; and been able to correct the issue immediately rather than after the fact.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being distracted and not arming two assigned doors.
Date: 202107
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: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Software and Automation; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Attention Mangers and Chief Dispatcher;I am currently working desk X. In my opinion the workload on my desk is currently unmanageable.  I am requesting immediate assistance due to increased activity. At this point I had one flight holding; multiple reroutes; a MTOW /reroute issue in ZZZ that would have resulted in involve bumping 30+ passenger if unable to get a route approved by the command center. This was all in addition to my normal flight following duties. The amount of flights on the desk; combined with summer weather; ATC proficiency; and crew staffing; have us all operating in the yellow on a continuous basis. I had no choice but to stop issuing releases to avoid going into the red and losing operational control. The manager was able to have another dispatcher prepare some releases for me; but the flights were never actually pulled from my desk.Management is putting too many flights on desks.Once and for all; come up with a joint solution for a workload model that puts safety first.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported  an unmanageable desk and asked for help.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBM.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G SBM
ATC / advisory: UNICOM SBM
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Electrical failure with strong smell of burning occurred while flying my [aircraft] over SBM at 4;500 ft. MSL. I turned off all electrical equipment and descended to land ASAP at SBM. Winds were light and variable. I chose to land on the longest runway in the direction best situated for my position. Several s-turns were made on final to descend. No radio calls were made as electrical equipment was off. On short approach I noted a plane departing on Runway 4; midfield at approximately 300 ft. AGL; turning to the west. I estimated our planes came within ~1;000 ft. of each other. I landed on Runway 22 without incident. The cause of the electrical failure and burning smell is under investigation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported near mid-air collision when landing without communications; following an electrical system failure.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Second aircraft: Other
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were sitting at the gate. Main aircraft door had been closed; parking brake was still set. All checklists had been completed; and we were awaiting communication with the tug driver/ ground crew. As the Captain saw a ramp agent take a seat in the tug; we felt a jolt of the aircraft; a momentary pause; and then a large jolt that shook the whole aircraft. We thought it was the tug tow bar being adjusted or hooked up differently.The Captain saw the tug driver get up and run away; towards the tail of the aircraft. Upon his return; he knocked on the side of the aircraft and told the Captain that we had actually been hit by another aircraft that was being pushed back from the gate next to ours. We then got out of the aircraft to inspect the situation. The wingtip of the other aircraft was pushed into the horizontal stabilizer of our aircraft; and thus sheared off the edge piece. The agent was notified; along with Dispatch for coordination.It was explained to us that the tug driver of the other aircraft was a temporary worker from [a nearby] airport. He was told to push deep for an aircraft that was coming off the runway and scheduled for the gate that he had just pushed out of. After the incident; we asked other ramp agents where the wing walker was; because if there had been a wing walker on our aircraft side; I imagine this situation could have been avoided. They explained to the Captain and me that only one wing walker is required; and they always stay on the runway side (FO wing) of the aircraft. Although the ramp area is a tight space; it would seem to make more sense to require a wing walker on each wing; or at a minimum require the wing walker to be on the side that poses more of a risk. In this case; the Captain side of the aircraft. We were also told by the agent that this same type of incident happened [before].


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


Synopsis: Air carrier aircraft parked at gate was hit by another aircraft being pushed back from gate.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Reverser
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: During replacement of the crossover beam; the parts delivered from stock as Serviceable had been modified by the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Supplement and one of the guide lugs was eliminated. The AMM Item 4-B; allows a blend repair referencing Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 54-30-00. After repair; it indicates the replacement of the beam at the next engine change. The two documents are asking for different resolutions leading to confusing instructions. I believe the beams in stock would be reject[ed] based on these documents.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports about confusing instructions in their A319 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Supplement and Structural Repair Manual (SRM) that allows modification of the V2500 Engine Crossover Beam; but also requires replacement at next engine change.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Descent
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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 Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Weird smell onboard. It could be smelled on entire aircraft. Followed QRH for Odor procedure. Uneventful landing in ZZZ. Contacted Dispatch. Wrote appropriate write-up on Aircraft Maintenance Log. Filled out internal report on iPad. Mechanics found Pack#2 heat exchanger filter clogged and caked with beverage fluids from drain mast (known issue on the E190).




Synopsis: ERJ-190 Captain reported a 'weird smell' on entire aircraft during flight.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
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: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Last week; I flew to ZZZ. We had an inop left aft fuel pump deferred (MEL attached). There are two important fuel numbers dealing with this; per the MEL. The first is 24;400 LBS; minimum required fuel load for takeoff. The second is 3;000 LBS; minimum required on board for landing. Per the MEL; this 3;000 LBS is penalty fuel; i.e. unusable. So; the way it seems to me; I must take off with at least 24;400 LBS; and I can't land with less than 3;000 LBS. I am allowed/legal and safe to burn below 24;400 LBS fuel on board. I believe my release (attached) had two mistakes on it. The first one I noticed was FOD (Fuel Over Destination.) The 6;743 LBS is wrong. It should be 21;843 LBS per the [flight manual] (FOB minus Burn (Dest+Taxi)). The Dispatcher (software) also subtracted the Adj (12;100) and the MEL (3;000) to arrive at 6;743 LBS. FOD is a planning tool for me to know if/when I need to divert and also to know if I have a fuel leak. The Adjust fuel (12;100) is usable if I need it. 6;743 is a meaningless number. The second error is the RQR of 23;195 LBS. The MEL clearly states that 24;400 LBS is the minimum fuel required for takeoff. I don't know if this error was caused by human input or a software/programming problem. Research by our Standards people will hopefully lead to education on the MEL and changes to the Flight Release software.


Second narrative: It is believed that the dispatcher had incorrectly notated the wrong FOD (Fuel Over Destination.) Per a deferral the flight was required to have extra fuel for departure which was in fact on board however it's believed the FOD was inaccurate. Believe the dispatcher made an error on the paperwork. Very well could have been a math error. To eliminate guess work. When this happens again in the future with the same MEL. It is required to discuss the fuel scenario with the dispatcher. To make sure all involved are on the same page.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew and Dispatcher reported errors in the flight release software when calculating for a deferred fuel pump.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Rejected Takeoff
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We received clearance for takeoff and proceeded down the runway after setting the power.  After setting the power I looked out in front of the aircraft.  While we rolled down the runway I noticed something in the center of the runway on the center-strip and watched as we closed in on the object.  It was a goose; and it began to run down the centerline of the runway and I interpreted trying to reach its V1 and Vr speed in a hurry.  I called out; 'Goose;' and the First Officer and I watched as it reached its maneuver speed and banked hard [left] just in front of our aircraft.  I watched as it was low in a left turn and going down the left side of our flight deck.  I directed my attention to the engine indications for engine 1 and noticed no fluctuations but did notice about a 50 degree difference between engine 1 and 2.  We didn't hear or feel any impact; but we did have on our headsets.  We were less than 100 knots so I elected to abort.  I did get a faint odor in the air conditioning system and suspected maybe we took the goose in the fan and not the engine itself.  I had struck a pelican at Vr years ago and while engine indications were all within parameters; except vibration; we had no other indications of a bird ingestion.  It destroyed 1/4 of the fan; blades were no longer there; so with this experience and everything else; I elected to abort and have Maintenance inspect aircraft.  We returned to the gate and we had noticed a faint odor on the abort which when I stepped off the flight deck was confirmed by a passenger in first class in seat 1C.  Maintenance and Airport Operations found no indications of ingestion or remains so we all felt the aircraft was safe to continue.  That was one lucky goose which I presume won't be hanging around [this airport] anymore.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports rejecting a takeoff due to the possibility a goose was struck and returning to the gate. No damage was found and the flight departs.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Wing Fuel Imbalance exceeded limits. Advised ATC; landed in ZZZ; overweight landing.Cause - Bad fuel transfer pumps/valves. Fix the old airplanes.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a wing fuel imbalance limit exceedance during cruise.