elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Since I now know of three incidences in which an A330 found itself relying on battery power only on the ground; and did not have VHF 1. We need an FOM policy for lost communications on the ground as well as in flight. Without 1 VHF there is no way to coordinate rescue [per] FOM 4.4.1/.2 and our cell phones would be off if we were blessed enough to have one and be in a country in which it had service. I would not want to explain to relatives their loved one perished while my phone powered up to call Dispatch to call rescue; or worse yet; no one's phone worked in country. We could never explain why we didn't make contingencies for documented failures of battery only VHF 1 on ground. Failures are occurring that prevent evacuation checklist to be accomplished.




Synopsis: An A330 Captain reported losing electrical power on the ground and VHF 1 did not operate; so the crew had no means of contacting first responders or Dispatch unless their personal phones worked on foreign communications systems.
Date: 202008
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: Other Rejected Takeoff
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Crew rejected the takeoff due to FLEX not set Caution Advisory during the takeoff roll. At initial thrust setting the #1 thrust lever would not seat properly in the FLEX Detent. CA adjusted the thrust lever and got proper indication that FLEX was set properly; FO made the FLEX Set call out. After accelerating through 80 knots the crew received a caution advisory that the thrust was not set; CA initiated a reject in response to the caution advisory. Crew returned to the gate for follow-up maintenance.After having reduced flying due to a limited flight schedule; there is a higher potential for errors; therefore as Captain; I decided to take a more cautious approach and rejected the takeoff.Suggestions - Place more of an emphasis on rejected takeoff considerations during crew brief.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a rejected takeoff due to a thrust setting caution advisory.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90; Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our clearance from IAH was climb via the BNDTO 2; top altitude 4;000 ft. We programed and briefed the departure accordingly. The tower gave us a departure clearance of 'Turn right to a heading of 350'. I questioned the tower stating our initial clearance was to depart via the BNDTO 2 RNAV departure and asked tower if he wanted us to fly the SID or fly a heading. He repeated the departure clearance of 'Turn right to Heading 350'. We departed 15R and turned right to heading of 350. Tower handed us off to departure control just prior to establishing on a 350 heading. Departure asked us why we were on a 350 heading and immediately told us to turn to a heading of 210. We turned to the assigned heading and I informed departure control that the heading was given to us by the tower and that I did question the clearance prior to our departure because it was not our original clearance. To the best of my knowledge I believe that I followed all instructions given to me by IAH clearance; tower and departure control. I believe the Houston Tower gave me incorrect departure instructions even after I questioned them about the assigned heading I received.




Synopsis: Pilot departing IAH was given a heading to fly while on a departure SID. Pilot asked tower if they should be on the heading or on the SID. Tower advised heading. When on departure frequency controller asked why they were on the heading. Controller told pilot to turn immediately to a different heading.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While reporting for flight XXXX; it was determined that the First Officer (FO) did not have his EFB/IPAD. We attempted to secure a loaner; however the loaner iPad did not allow a sign in. We contacted the [Chief Pilot] and received clearance to conduct single EFB procedures in strict accordance with the FOM for our flight up to ZZZ1. We also strictly followed FOM guidance on the alternate signing procedures for fit to fly and safety of flight as the FO could not electronically sign. We dealt with a large amount of confusion (on CLP's end) when contacting CLP (Central Load Planning) about the requirement to confirm that we had followed the alternate procedures. We had to quote the specific FOM reference as they were; in general; completely unaware of alternate signing procedures. We were able to secure a functioning loaner iPad in ZZZ1. However; the First Officer was still unable to electronically sign. We strictly followed alternate signing procedures throughout the trip. We continued to face confusion and in some cases outright hostility from CLP when we contacted them as required by the FOM. In each case we handed out a hard copy without signatures to station personnel and instructed them that these documents were to be retained. This week I was contacted by the event [review] team and told it was determined that we were not in compliance. This is not correct. There is obviously some missing step (possibly on CLP's end) where that team did not record our use of the FOM guidance on alternate signing procedures. To the best of my knowledge we were completely operating in compliance and spending a significant of administrative effort to do so. In closing I would like to sincerely thank the event review team for all of the time and effort each of you spend in helping to make this a safe operation. [Captain recommends] IT improvements that allow E-signing on loaner iPads.




Synopsis: Airline Captain reported a communication breakdown with Central Load Planning regarding a loaner Ipad for First Officer which may have led to being out-of-compliance.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Paperwork Review
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] addressed a deferred item on Log page XXX [for] (fuel panel leaking). [I] replaced fuel tank Access Panel 632MB on right wing. [I] should have replaced 532MB on the left wing. [I] discovered the mistake shortly after changing panel 632MB. [I] replaced the correct panel 532MB and leak checked. Note: aircraft did not fly; mistake was discovered and corrected quickly. [Also] had three aircraft go out of service in the same time period. Had another aircraft with a problem on the right hand side and inadvertently confused the aircraft.




Synopsis: A Lead Mechanic reports he inadvertently replaced right wing Fuel Access Panel 632MB on a B737-800 aircraft; instead of the left wing Fuel Access Panel 532MB to address a deferred item for a fuel panel leaking.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All preflight and taxi checks revealed no abnormalities prior to taking the runway. Upon takeoff clearance; I advanced the power levers. After 3-4 seconds both left and right GEN FAIL annunciator lights illuminated. I immediately pulled power to ground idle and notified tower of the aborted takeoff. Upon exiting the runway I was given permission to hold position and troubleshoot. When I was unable to get the left generator to re-engage I asked Tower to return to parking.




Synopsis: SA-227AC pilot reported rejecting the takeoff after the left and right generator fail lights illuminated.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing; during taxi in; a truck struck our aircraft on the left wing. We had just turned left onto taxiway A after crossing 4L. The captain attempted to swerve away from the truck and brake.The truck was traveling at a high rate of speed. There was no avoiding the truck as we could not swerve too far due to gates on our right. Braking was also unsuccessful in avoiding the truck. In the future; vehicles operating in the vicinity of airplanes should be aware of their surroundings.


Second narrative: After clearing 4L and taxing on to taxiway A city white truck came from intersection A1 Or A2 at a high speed. Coming at an angle he appeared to want to make a turn and was merging to the right on collision course with aircraft. Driver was looking straight ahead and not looking to the right. Appeared to be on phone or radio. Set brakes and tried to move aircraft to right to avoid collision. Truck driver at a fast speed and not realizing he was merging onto an active taxiway with an aircraft en route. Not paying attention possibly on phone or radio. Truck driver to pay closer attention to his whereabouts.


Synopsis: Regional jet flight crew experienced a collision with an airport truck during their taxi to the gate after landing.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: AC Generation Indicating and Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback from gate and after both engines started; First Officer and I noticed a strong odor. To me it smelled like crayons; and even maybe a slight electrical smell. After configuring aircraft and during taxi to runway; the smell disappeared prior to taking off. After takeoff; we had a TCAS fail; Flaps 2 fault; First Officer side ADC failure; and the odor returned. So; after running appropriate check lists; we elected to return to ZZZ as we weren't going to proceed all the way to ZZZ1 with these conditions.


Second narrative: Strong smell after engine start detected that became intermittent.  It smelled like a laminator machine. It was intermittent so we elected to continue with no smell detected at takeoff. On takeoff; we experienced a TCAS failure and some sort of instrument error on the FO panel (speed zipper disappeared with red 'spd lmt' light illuminated). Shortly after it was followed by a flaps 2 fault without any movement of the flaps handle. While troubleshooting the flaps we also noticed the smell grew stronger. With all those things combined we decided to return ZZZ.


Synopsis: A300 Captain reported a burning smell in the cockpit and multiple system failures after takeoff; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While operating to EWR we were getting vectors for ILS 22L. We were instructed at this point by New York Approach and at around 10 miles WNW of PATRN to descend from 3;000 feet to 2;000 feet. My First Officer (FO) was Pilot Flying (PF) and he began a descent at 1;000 FPM to 2;000 feet as directed. When we reached about 2;200 feet we received a 'Terrain; Terrain; Pull Up' caution in the cockpit. We immediately executed our escape maneuver procedure per SOP and climbed to 2;500 feet. The caution cleared at around 2;300 feet. We continued our descent back to 2;000 feet and got another instruction from ATC to expedite to 2;000 feet and it's at this point I informed ATC of the reason for our deviation. ATC then told us again to expedite to 2;000 feet. As it was a dark night location we were unable to see the obstacle. As we were told to descend to 2;000 feet I told my FO that based on my experience; it was a very unusual instruction given our distance from the airfield. My experience in that area is to be in the region of 3;000-5;000 feet. As it was dark; I was unable to tell whether we were in a safe area. We were descending in normal parameters at 1000 FPM; however; we discussed that maybe it had to do with our closure rate with terrain and/or an obstacle like an antenna. I also looked on Google Earth for any obstructions that stood out and didn't find any. The coordinates of this event were very close to 40.9728 -74.2883 according to Flight Aware. In future I would query if given an altitude that low in that area or descend at 500 FPM; but it's hard to say if this would make a difference without any information on the actual obstacle.




Synopsis: EMB Captain reported responding to a GPWS terrain warning on approach into EWR.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
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
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During vector to CLL by TRACON; the electrical power failed resulting in loss of all radio; navigation (GPS and VOR); heading system; and engine instruments. I remained VMC and climbed from 6;000 MSL (assigned) to 6;500 MSL for VFR flight to destination.I followed the route as given except to deviate west of course to remain clear of Class B airspace. Upon landing I called FSS; DFW Approach and Houston TRACON to advise them of my landing. I did attempt cell phone calls but had no reception during the flight.




Synopsis: BE35 pilot experiences electrical failure at 6;000 FT while being vectored by I90 Approach. Flight continues to destination VFR at 6;500 FT.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; General Work Refused; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While loading [the] flight; I instructed my crew to load all mail carts in the A1 compartment of the aircraft. While they were loading I noticed a box with an 'Limited/Excepted quantities' label in [the] cart. As it came up the belt I also noticed a sticker with 'ground transport only' with an aircraft and a red circle and hash mark through it indicating do not load on any aircraft. The shipment appeared to contain lithium batteries 'UN3481.' I was told by manager to make sure I load all mail.  I placed it to the side and did not load.Lack of training and oversight from the contract company [is an issue]. Pressure from company management to maximize profits; complacency; lack of caring from contract company.I removed [the shipment] from [the] belt and did not load. [It was] sent back to contract mail company so [they] could transport safely.More training; more vigilance.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Service Lead Technician reported Contractor company attempted to load Hazmat cargo clearly labeled as Hazmat 'Surface Transport only' on aircraft.