elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: At FL350; Crew encountered severe turbulence briefly while deviating upwind of what looked like a small stratoform cloud area. Two Flight Attendants were injured and a medical diversion was made. Even when rides are being reported smooth; never assume that it will always be accurate.


Second narrative: Leveled off at a cruise altitude of FL350 due to reports of moderate at FL370. Asked for a deviation around some clouds ahead on our route; radar was not painting anything and reports were light chop. We did hit a pocket of brief turbulence. We were informed from the Cabin Crew that two Flight Attendants were injured.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported two flight attendants were injured in a turbulence encounter at FL350.
Date: 201812
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flight planned on the LINKK arrival into IAH; which would set us up for the ILS 27. When I programmed the FMC; I left in the discontinuity because in the overwhelming majority of flights I do to IAH; I am assigned a different STAR. It's rare that I fly what we are filed for. I left in the discontinuity as a reminder that we might get a different STAR and/or approach.We flew the LINKK mostly as published; save for some speed changes and a few direct-to clearances. All went well until we got to RDFSH. I had selected a transition; which left open the discontinuity. Just prior to RDFSH; we were cleared for the ILS to 27. The controller did not say 'via the RDFSH transition'; so I extended the approach and allowed the airplane to fly in heading select.Shortly thereafter; almost simultaneously; the Captain made a comment about whether or not we were expected to overfly DENTO and TRANN as the controller broke us off the approach and gave us new vectors. He said we had been cleared for the ILS; apparently meaning the full transition starting at RDFSH. The Captain and I briefly discussed what had happened; and as we did; we heard the controller giving similar break-off instructions to a flight behind us that had apparently made the same mistake.We were descended and given a heading to join; and the remainder of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on the LINKK arrival into IAH following clearance confusion.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: HCF Controller failed to clear us for the visual or to join an instrument approach and left us on a 345 heading directly toward the West Maui mountains. We stated three prior times that we had Kahului field in sight. We finally were cleared for a visual approach; however we were west of the localizer and had to turn back east to avoid the West Maui Mountains. HCF controller seemed unable to handle amount of traffic he was assigned to control.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported late clearance instructions from ATC while inbound to OGG.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Pedal
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure during climbing left turn; I applied rudder to stay coordinated. I then noticed the rudder pedals were jammed and very difficult to move. I informed ATC I needed return to the departure airport. I was then vectored back to the field for a visual approach to Runway XX. After landing; I taxied to the gate; had the passengers deplaned and proceeded to write up the mechanical discrepancy in the AML. I called the Operations Control and informed him of the incident. I was then relieved of duty for the remainder of the day.




Synopsis: Captain reported jammed rudder pedals on takeoff and elected to perform an air turn back and precautionary landing at departure airport.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DAL
Aircraft component: Positional / Directional Sensing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The First Officer was flying a visual approach to 31R at DAL. He had the autopilot engaged with approach mode selected. The Localizer and glideslope were both captured and the aircraft was approaching target speed and final configuration. As we were approaching one of the buildings east of downtown; the glideslope began to fluctuate. The aircraft began to pitch up and down to regain the glideslope. As it pitched down; we received a Caution Obstacle Alert. The First Officer immediately disconnected the autopilot and corrected the flight path. We never received a Pull Up Alert. We realized the glideslope was getting some interference and the First Officer flew the aircraft visually without incident. The building was in sight the entire time; but I believe when the airplane began to pitch for the erratic glideslope it sensed a fast closure to the obstacle. After landing; I realized we should have gone around for the caution because it was dark. Since I didn't hear Pull Up; we had the obstacle in sight and the caution went away immediately we decided to land. However; after reviewing our policy I realized at night with a caution; it requires a go-around and that's exactly what we should have done. The glideslope anomalies for both 31L and 31R are nothing new; and I should have reminded the First Officer about them so he could have planned accordingly.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew experienced unstable glideslope on short final.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Runway excursion on Runway XX at ZZZ during touch and go. The student applied right brake which caused the aircraft to turn hard right; causing Instructor pilot to take controls to stabilize the aircraft. Aircraft momentarily skipped on the grass and Instructor pilot was able to bring aircraft to a controlled stop safely on the taxiway. No one was injured and the aircraft and surrounding property were not damaged.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported assuming control of aircraft after landing when the student pilot incorrectly applied right brake; resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Union Ramp Safety Representative contacted me regarding an inoperative Forward Cargo Door Balance Mechanism. They [Ramp employees] did not want to unload/load the [cargo] pit due to what they felt was an unsafe condition. Another Mechanic was called to discuss the matter and communicated that the MEL states when the Door Balance Mechanism fails; a suitable hold-open device would be used. It calls for a 2'x 4' inch board painted red with sufficient length to insert between the door skin and cargo floor sheet metal. The Ramp Agents remembered that we used a two-cable system mounted to the pit ceiling to hold cargo doors 'open' on our old B737-300; -500 aircraft when the ceiling latches failed. This is not an option on the B737NG aircraft; so no provision exists for cables. The Ramp employee has a credible concern that with the board installed; it could be accidentally knocked out of place and the 60 pound door could instantly drop on the Ramp employee's head; causing serious injury. The Union Safety Team is also frustrated that a ground report filed a year earlier regarding this matter didn't provide a safer solution. Some mechanics feel this is a safe process if there were a Safety Watch person stationed at the hold-open board. Manpower constraints don't make this a certainty. I concur with the Union Safety that this process should be reviewed and made safer. Company Fleet Engineering should create a safer alternative to securing a cargo door when the balance mechanism fails to hold the door in the 'open' position. This should include installing eye bolts and cables with clips into the ceiling. After that; change the MEL procedures to reflect the safer method to [install a] strap around the [cargo] door assembly for security. MEL/CDL. Cargo loading.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports a Ramp employee did not want to unload/load the baggage compartment of a B737-800 aircraft due to the Forward Cargo Door Balance Mechanism had failed. Adding to safety concern was a proviso in their MEL that allowed for an unguarded 2' X 4' inch board to be inserted between the 60-pound cargo door skin and the compartment sheet metal floor to hold the door up.
Date: 202112
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Other No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Parts / Stores Personnel
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We have been getting shipments delivered via [Shipping Company] that come from non company locations. These items being delivered to ZZZ stores are HAZMAT aircraft parts and they were driven to us undeclared. These arrangements have been made by the AOG desk. [Hazmat Recovery team] has a hazmat recovery teams around the system for this purpose. To retrieve such hazardous materials and ship them back with the proper documents. The parts were driven from ZZZ1 and ZZZ2. 2 separate incidents back to back.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Stores personnel reported receiving undeclared ground shipment. The shipment was in violation of company Hazmat recovery procedures.
Date: 202010
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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A part of my preflight briefing includes the request that face coverings be worn when not eating or drinking in the cockpit due to the confined space. My First Officer stated that he would not comply because he had been wearing one all day and did not want to wear one on the flight. After additional requests for compliance I stated that this was a no go item for me and elevated it to Flight Operations and the Chief Pilot.My reasoning here is that if one pilot is COVID positive yet asymptomatic the chances of the other pilot becoming infected in this environment are very high. I feel that mask usage is a reasonable precaution that reduces the overall risk. Several hundred pilots already contract COVID and unfortunately at least one pilot has died as a result and I believe that statistically speaking this is a higher threat to us at present then all other threats. Unfortunately; there is a lack of guidance to mitigate this risk.I believe the company should provide guidance towards the cockpit that parallels the guidance for all other areas of our operation that masks should be used at all times when not eating and drinking. When I informed the Flight Attendants of the situation they became extremely supportive and explained that they felt very unsafe when approaching cockpit crews who were not wearing face coverings. Please address this issue. My First Officer did finally agree to wear his mask after speaking to the Chief Pilot and the flight was completed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the First Officer would not wear a face mask in the cockpit when asked to.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: RTO due to takeoff configure warning. Planned for takeoff on Runway 27; then Tower assigned Runway 36L. First Officer proceeded to change runway in FMS then check takeoff data. Some problem in FMC prevented calculation of climb and takeoff data. Informed Tower we had a problem and stopped on taxiway. After several attempts; we reset all data in FMS and displayed takeoff and climb information. Continued taxi; cleared across intersecting runway; then shifted to parallel; but FMS problem broke up our flow and we failed to configure properly for takeoff; resulting in warning light/bell. Taxied clear; reset data; insured proper configuration; and took off safely.FMS system malfunction distracted us from normal flow of pre-takeoff checks.When any non-normal situation occurs recheck and rethink all requirements to restore situational awareness.


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


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported they executed an RTO after they failed to properly set configuration for takeoff. Flight crew reported having difficulty reprogramming the FMS following a late runway change on taxi out that distracted them from SOP.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were assigned a Visual Approach 16L in DEN. ATC had notified us that there were simultaneous parallel approaches being conducted to 17R and 16R. ATC issued a traffic advisory (and we noticed on TCAS) of a close parallel arrival; an Airbus which we also had in sight. We had the autopilot engaged and the automation was accurately following the approach vertical and horizontal guidance. The Airbus looked to us to be at the same altitude following straight in approach to 16R. We were given an RA from the TCAS for a descent. VSI indicated escape guidance to descend 1;500 fpm on short final. We reported the RA; and the Airbus crew also advised of the necessity to comply with an RA to tower. Escape guidance concluded at 600 AGL from which we continued a normal descent to landing.I think this is an ATC spacing issue. Due to traffic volume and parallel approaches aircraft were not staggered far enough apart. The RA could have possibly been avoided this way. However; because we were flying in VMC; both aircraft were able to maintain visual separation and complete descent to landing.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 cleared for a visual approach to 16L and sandwiched between parallel approaches to 16R and 17R at DEN received a TCAS RA directing a 1;500 FPM descent with respect to the parallel traffic to their right; which had also received an RA.
Date: 202001
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; General Maintenance Action; General Evacuated; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our transitioning from [gate] to [gate] and before contacting ground control the flight deck was called. I answered the call and it was Flight Attendant informing me of smoke in the cabin as she also pressed the emergency button. I told Captain of smoke in the cabin and the decision to evacuate was made. Captain told ramp of the evacuation while I confirmed to Flight Attendant of the evacuation. Captain clicked over to PA to what it seemed to gather more information while in COMM One I overheard the ramp asking for reconfirmation; as I was starting to choke on the smoke. I clicked over to COMM One and reconfirmed. Captain and I proceeded to run the evacuation QRH checklist. After it was completed; I grabbed the airplane flashlight and ran down the stairs leading the passengers away from the airplane to a safe spot away from the airplane and any oncoming emergency vehicles.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported that smoke in the cabin during taxi resulted in an evacuation.