elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X with pilot reporting had just turned downwind and leveled off at 700 feet. Other aircraft; a Piper PA-28; (Aircraft Y) was entering the pattern on what looked to be a 135-degree angle to join the downwind (I have a picture to show this.) Aircraft entering somehow did not see the bright yellow J-3 on the downwind. The aircraft proceeded to overfly both the proper downwind and pilot reporting aircraft; then the aircraft proceeded to overcorrect for the downwind and overflew the reporting aircraft again. Reporting aircraft then proceed to maneuver out of the way and clear of the other aircraft. Aircraft then stated on the radio 'we are following the kit aircraft' so other aircraft must have seen reporting aircraft. Reporting aircraft had a radio and was making proper radio calls; could hear the CTAF; but could possibly not have been transmitting.


Second narrative: While in the pattern for Runway XX at ZZZ; the reporting aircraft was flying at 700 feet abeam the numbers when Aircraft Y; a PA-28; entered the pattern over 90 degrees to the downwind directly behind the reporting aircraft at a distance well below VFR separation minimum. In order to avoid a mid-air collision; the reporting aircraft took evasive action and descended.


Synopsis: GA pilots reported NMAC while in the pattern of a non-towered airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Ground DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In a time when [Company] has seen an unprecedented increase in ground collision events why is DFW ground control issuing taxi instructions which include the terms 'expedite;' 'hurry across;' 'best speed across;' 'best time across;' etc. when giving clearances to cross the Zulu bridge?  While I understand with the construction on the bridge certainly complicates their taxi plan; issuing these hurry up instructions with a taxi clearance; when [Company] and [Union] are repeatedly sending 'Slow Down to Speed Up' messages seems counterproductive. I would suggest we forward this report [to them] and the entire DFW team suggesting ATC get back in the business of issuing taxi instructions and allow the pilots to do their 'pilot stuff' - controllers control - pilots fly. It is time for Ground Control to stop acting like they are pilots.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported DFW Ground Control advising pilots to expedite their taxi.
Date: 201812
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
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: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During cruise; approximately 30 minutes from landing in ZZZ after a routine flight; First Officer mentioned he didn't feel well. Then; he lost consciousness for 30-60 seconds. Captain (Pilot Flying) got a Flight Attendant to the cockpit; [advised ATC] and informed Dispatch. First Officer recovered and was met on landing by first responders and walked to an exam area and then an ambulance. Captain accompanied First Officer to hospital.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the First Officer became ill during cruise.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: May have busted level off altitude due to wake turbulence from preceding Airbus and/or moderate to severe turbulence on the climb out; just south of high terrain; wind gusts. Departed from VNY to the north (runway 34); very turbulent on the climb out; frequency very busy; unable to communicate with ATC and I had a pressurization issue which needed to be corrected compounding the potential altitude bust; but was immediately cleared direct to Gorman; 'climb and maintain 10;000 feet' so I sensed the controller knew the conditions as well.




Synopsis: CE560 Captain reported overshooting cleared altitude because of turbulence and wake vortex encounter.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My fourth leg of the day; first with First Officer and first with aircraft that had just come out of maintenance. Events from pre-departure through climbout were normal. I always monitor the service intercom during flight and; during climb; I heard the 'A' Flight Attendant ask one of the others if she smelled anything burning. They confirmed an odor but stated it wasn't too bad at the time. I could initially detect a stale smelling odor from the air conditioning unit. As we just reached cruise altitude; the 'A' Flight Attendant rang me to say the odor was getting stronger. She described it as a burning electrical smell; we could definitely smell something burning at that time. I directed the First Officer to don oxygen. We were only 50 NM away from the departure airport so I contacted ATC to declare an emergency and request vectors back to the departure airport for landing. I directed the First Officer to keep flying while I told Company we were returning and then ran the QRH for fumes in the cabin and set up for an ILS approach back to 31L. I was still trying to complete the Fumes Removal Checklist as we were descending to 6;000 FT. Once at 6;000 FT; I elected to stop running the QRH and complete the preparations for landing. The approach and landing; while expeditious; was stable and uneventful. We cleared the runway and stopped. The 'A' told me the fumes were dissipating and crash/fire rescue also could not see any evidence of fire so I elected to taxi to the gate with CFR in tow. Passengers deplaned. I did not observe anyone with issues as they deplaned. I found out the right engine had just been changed. But; I don't know if Maintenance could have found the cause of the problem with just an engine run.


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


Synopsis: After reaching cruise altitude; the flight attendants reported a burning electrical odor which the pilots then detected; so an emergency was declared; oxygen masks donned; and the flight returned to the departure airport while the QRH was being accomplished.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Syst Reservoir Tank
Component problem: Failed
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying in cruise about 70 minutes into the flight and prior to ZZZZZ; we received an ECAM for HYD B RSVR LO LVL. The SD screen showed blue hydraulic level was nearly empty; well into the amber (though still with 3;100 PSI of pressure in the blue system). We followed the ECAM actions and turned off the blue engine and electrical hydraulic pumps. Shortly thereafter; we received another ECAM for HYD B RSVR LO AIR PR; as well as loss of the blue system pressure. We went through the ECAM procedures; then contacted Dispatch and Maintenance; brought the Relief Pilot back to the flight deck; looked through the FCOM (Flight Crew Operations Manual) and QRH; and decided that the unexplained loss of fluid; complete loss of blue hydraulics; and our proximity to ZZZ made an air turnback the prudent course of action. ATC was notified via CPDLC; we [requested priority handling] and were routed back to ZZZ. The Captain spoke to the flight attendants and the passengers; and the Relief Pilot and dispatch both did landing distance calculations. We used an early descent; speed brakes and an early gear drop to burn additional fuel and ensure we landed under max weight. After landing; we were met by emergency trucks who verified there was no additional leakage under the aircraft; then we taxied to the gate; being pulled in by the tug as a precaution.I thought the process worked as well as could be expected. The Captain solicited input accordingly and demonstrated good leadership. The cabin crew; dispatch/maintenance and ATC all did a very good job accommodating the air return and planning accordingly. I felt like we all worked together to mitigate the risk of the malfunction and bring the plane safely back to ZZZ.




Synopsis: A330 First Officer reported loss of hydraulic system pressure during cruise; resulting in a diversion.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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 Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff the First Officer stated 'airspeed' at 100kts. Decision was made to continue. During the climb Captain's airspeed accelerated to 380-420 kts. First Officer's airspeed was normal. Passing through 6;000 feet the clacker came on. The First Officer went through the unreliable airspeed check list [and] altimeter disagree checklist. We transferred controls and contacted Maintenance and Dispatch. Suggestion was made to activate the stall protection system test to get the clacker off. This did not work. After determining the First Officer's information was accurate the First Officer flew the airplane. At one point ATC was showing that the Captain's data was correct. The First Officer pointed to the standby information and we switched to number two transponder. This gave ATC accurate information. We planned a 15 mile final and configured early. The clacker went off while descending through 6;000 feet. We selected flaps 30 and the flaps indicator showed 25 based on Captain's information. We selected 40 and the indicator went to 30 as we were on short final we selected flaps 30 and flaps stayed at 30. Captain's airspeed slowed to about 120 as the plane approached to land.


Second narrative: During takeoff roll F/O made '100 kts' callout when CA-side airspeed indicator read 80 kts. The decision was made to continue. After takeoff; CA's airspeed indication climbed faster than FO's. Around 6;000 ft CA's airspeed indication exceeded 250kts; maxing out at around 400 kts by 15;000 ft. We [advised ATC] for unreliable instruments and were assigned 14;000 ft. At that time it was discovered that the altimeters disagreed by about 1;000 ft with the CA's reading higher. QRH procedures for unreliable airspeed and altimeter disagree were performed.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported returning to the departure airport after noting the Captain's side airspeed and altimeter were unreliable.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our aircraft arrived from ZZZ with an MEL for the #2 fuel tank quantity gauge reading 530 lbs. low. We read through the MEL to verify which procedures we would be required to complete; mainly the dipstick of the #2 tank to verify fuel quantity. I took for granted that the other procedures required were completed correctly by Maintenance. I didn't even realize that it was Contract Maintenance in ZZZ that completed the procedures for the MEL. Maintenance in ZZZ disconnected the center fuel tank gauge in error; instead of the #2 fuel tank gauge; as required by the MEL. We observed no reading at the center tank gauge and incorrectly assumed that there was no fuel in the center tank. On our second leg from ZZZ to ZZZ1; we realized that the center tank should at least read a zero and not blank and decided to have Maintenance meet us in ZZZ1 to correct the problem.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that maintenance did not comply with MEL procedures resulting in fuel tank quantity gauge reading errors.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: TCAS Equipment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent out of approximately 6;000 FT we received a traffic alert immediately followed by a resolution advisory. Followed the alert commands which initially was to climb then later to descend. Contacted ATC was told there was no traffic in the area. The RA remained on the screen for 5 minutes and never received a clear of conflict. Suspect equipment malfunction. Entered discrepancy in AC log and submitted required forms. Initially told there were no injuries but later two flight attendants complained of sore backs.




Synopsis: MD83 Captain experiences traffic alert immediately followed by a resolution advisory upon descending out of 6;000 FT. Commands for climb and descent were received and the target remained co-located and same altitude. ATC reported no traffic in the area.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other physical search

Narrative: Found during the physical search screening at the time of tender with seven Lithium Ion batteries inside the freight un-declared. The batteries were all the same type for a camera. DC 7.2V; 1865mAh(Li-ion) 14 Wh. All Canon LP-E6N type. All seven batteries were loose and not in equipment.




Synopsis: Ramp Personnel found loose lithium batteries during physical search.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other During Pushback
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We obtained Ramp clearance to push. While waiting for A Flight Attendant; cockpit door still open; Captain said 'Brakes released; standby to push; but do not push.' Aircraft rolled back slightly. Captain repeated three times 'stop the push! Do not push!' Aircraft came to a stop. Tug driver said he was not able to stop until the tug hit the left side of the aircraft.


Second narrative: Communications was established with tug driver; but driver was not given clearance by the flight crew to begin pushback. Driver began pushback; Captain instructed the driver to stop the push three times with no response; then the driver excitedly responded that the tow bar had become disconnected and to stop the aircraft. The aircraft was stopped smoothly from a slow speed and the tug impacted the side of the aircraft with enough energy to become wedged under the aircraft.Preventative Measures: Better communications between the tug driver and flight deck; repeating back instructions to the pilot (e.g. cleared to push; tail west). Most airlines do this. A procedure the flight deck is aware of in the event of lost COMM or towbar disconnect with the ground crew. This should be a minor abnormal event; not an accident waiting to happen.


Synopsis: A Boeing 737 flight crew reported that during push-back the tow bar became disconnected and the tug contacted the aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ILM.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ILM
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two aircraft were allowed to land crossing runways at the same time. I was notified by other controllers present that both aircraft crossed the threshold at the same time and that the Local Controller laughed about it. This Local Controller has been doing their duties incorrectly and it is my belief that they are putting aircraft in bad situations intentionally.This controller needs to be watched closely because they are not performing their duties.




Synopsis: An ILM Controller reported the Local Controller allowed two aircraft to land simultaneously on intersecting runways resulting in a ground conflict.