elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When we arrived at the gate and opened the flight deck door; the Purser reported that both aft galley flight attendants briefly smelled a burnt plastic smell during the taxi to the gate. A Maintenance write up was reported and a call was placed to Maintenance Control and Dispatch. The First Officer and I stayed with the local tech ops team and flight attendants to fill out the smoke checklist and to trouble shoot the issue. After researching the issue; it was found to be deice fluid being sucked into the APU during the start. No further action taken.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being notified by Flight Attendant crew of 'burnt plastic' odor during arrival taxi.
Date: 201303
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: If I were to design a purposefully fatigue inducing trip within the FARs; I don't think I could do a better job. The first day had a 04:45 report time. Both the Captain and I had to wake at about 03:00 in order to report. The next day had a 05:35 report; necessitating a wake up of about 04:30 (times are Eastern). Day three brought another early morning (although not nearly so early as the first two) followed by a double duty period including a two leg red-eye [seven hours total]. I am accustomed to red eyes and double duty periods by now; but this was extreme. WOCL incursions occurred 3 times during the trip. I am (objectively) young and fit compared to the general pilot pool; and I struggled to get adequate rest and remain alert. The trip ended Friday morning and I did not feel even moderately recovered until Sunday.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer describes a fatiguing trip paring that is FAR legal but should not be.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departing and climbing out at 13000 ft we noticed an unusual spray of fuel coming from left wing. At the same time several passengers alerted us to same. I could see the spray from the mirror in the cockpit and instructed the SIC to go back and look from the left rear window. He confirmed that we were indeed spraying fuel off the left wing. We asked ATC for an altitude hold while we troubleshoot the situation and make a call to maintenance. The spray was heavy; then light; then nonexistent then heavy again. I made the decision to return back to the departure airport as a precautionary measure. We were slightly overweight and requested a hold for several minutes while we burned off enough fuel for a safe landing weight. During this time there was no further fuel spray that could be seen visually. ATC was very helpful although no emergency was declared or necessary. We returned uneventfully and landed. Maintenance met us at the FBO.

Callback: The reporter indicated that a fuel system check valve was found to be stuck open and venting fuel overboard. Since the valve was replaced no further leaks have been observed.



Synopsis: The pilot of a Gulfstream G-IV reported a fuel leak from the left wing that resulted in a return to the field. It was later determined that a fuel system check valve was stuck open and venting fuel overboard.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a busy combined position. I was working both the Feeder and Final because we were short staffed. In addition; we had a flight check in the area and sequence was trying to coordinate with me on his handling. An E135 had to be taken out of the final sequence because another aircraft had navigation problems on the approach causing the arrival line to 'bunch up.' I vectored the E135 westbound at 5;000 FT because there was an aircraft on the downwind at 4;000 FT. The next aircraft coming in; an A319 was also descended to 5;000 FT because in my judgment if they had stayed on the arrival the two aircraft would pass no factor. Unfortunately; the A319 'led' the turn on the STAR causing them to pass too closely to the E135. Both aircraft responded to an RA. The unusual situation with flight check and the required coordination was certainly a factor in distracting me. Also; the aircraft that had a navigation problem caused a lot of work all at once. If the position was separated the traffic volume and complexity would have been halved. Additionally; the A319 leading the turn is dangerous and the pilots of those aircraft should be reminded that it is bad practice in such a confined airspace like New York.




Synopsis: N90 Controller described a loss of separation event complicated by a flight check aircraft.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local 1. I had a helicopter call me inbound 5 southeast of the field. Told him to report 1 mile west of the field and asked him his landing request. He told me at a local FBO for fuel. I asked him which one and the helicopter continued inbound. I had an Air Carrier on about a 7 mile final at this point. When the helicopter got closer to the airport I coordinated with the other Local Control for a Taxiway Alpha abeam the FBO landing and also with Ground Control. I told the helicopter to cross directly over the Tower and make a right turn over Taxiway Alpha cleared to land Taxiway Alpha abeam the FBO. I informed the Air Carrier of the helicopter and told him the [traffic] was 1 o'clock and 3 miles. I then informed the helicopter of traffic departing Runway 19L (a small aircraft). As the helicopter crossed over the Tower he started to descend directly for Taxiway Alpha and would have gotten close to the small aircraft. I informed the helicopter to stop his descent for the small aircraft and the other Local cancelled the takeoff of the Cessna. (The issue is I did not give an altitude restriction to the helicopter; which put him in close proximity of the small aircraft).Recommend to have established helicopter procedures published for all helicopters inbound to SNA to stop the issue from happening. This is not the first time at SNA that we have had issues with helicopters.




Synopsis: SNA Tower Controller reports of route problem into SNA involving helicopters conflicting with normal flow if traffic.
Date: 201908
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: Ramp
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working [at a] gate working my own flight. I overheard [Operations] on the radio about Flight XXX needed [Dangerous Goods Load Report] finalization and that they were #1 on the runway to takeoff and needed [Dangerous Goods Load Report] ASAP! The actual Lead [Ramp Agent] on that flight was someone else and he was the one who actually worked and loaded the flight. He was having difficulty closing out the flight. I finished my flight and went to workstation to assist [the Lead ramp Agent] on closing out the [Dangerous Goods Load Report]. I logged into [the system] and closed out the [Dangerous Goods Load Report] because he was unfamiliar with [the system] and needed assistance and with the pressure we kept getting from [Operations] because they were in danger of taking off I closed the flight out for the other Lead [Ramp Agent]. Unfortunately the other Lead that loaded that flight did not secure the DG (Dangerous Goods) that was loaded on the aircraft with 15 bags and the [destination] station filed a report against the [origin] station and since my log in was used to close out the flight. Turns out the DG was never loaded based on testimony the Ramp Supervisor made in [the destination airport]. This situation happens more often than not with one Lead loading the aircraft and because of unfamiliarization with [the system] or scanner; ANOTHER Lead comes over to close out the flight and we constantly see errors like this. Some cases the Ramp Supervisor would tell another Lead to log in and close the flights out for others. This actually has happened to me on several occasions where management would tell me to close out the flights of other Leads. I did not want to question my supervisor for fear of retaliation or for fear that I might get write up so I did what they ask.




Synopsis: Commercial Airline Lead Ramp Agent reported closing out cargo departure report for colleague due to pending aircraft departure. Lead Ramp Agent further reported frequent occurrence of Supervisor directing ramp agents close out Load Reports due to pending aircraft departure.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clouds in vicinity; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared through Class B at 6;500 ft. VFR southbound. I requested and was granted from approach a descent to 4;500 ft. to maintain VFR. There were clouds in the vicinity. I began descent immediately and soon after was given traffic location; opposite direction; expedite descent; and 'if you don't see the traffic turn right to 270 degrees'. I immediately increased descent rate to 1;500 fpm and turned to 270 degrees. After a few moments I was told to continue on course. I continued on descent to 4;500 ft. and turned on course.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot in Class B airspace reported a close encounter with another aircraft.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cabin Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Placard for all Flight Attendant interphones were wrong. Maintenance was mad about the write-up; saying if the phone is usable we shouldn't care about the placard. He said a lot of unprofessional opinions about us. The point is it's the incorrect placard and needs to be documented.




Synopsis: B777 Flight Attendant reported aircraft containing incorrect interphone placards and Maintenance having unprofessional conduct.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Aircraft: Citation III; VI; VII (C650)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C TUL
ATC / advisory: TRACON TUL
Second aircraft: Beech 1900
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C650 was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 18R and instructed to intercept final on a 150 heading due to traffic going to the parallel. A BE1900 was cleared visual approach to 18L and instructed to intercept final on a 210 heading due to traffic going to the parallel. The C650 flew through his own final and directly in front of the BE1900. The C650 did not follow instructions and caused an unsafe situation to occur with another aircraft. The FAA implemented the 30 degree intercept rule for aircraft on a visual approach to parallel runways to prevent aircraft from overshooting their final and possibly hitting another aircraft. The problem is that the pilots that I talked with had no idea what to do when given the instruction. They had not been briefed on the new approach clearance phraseology and were therefore caught by surprise. My advise is to brief the pilots to such a change.




Synopsis: TUL Controller described an unsafe event during side visual approaches to parallel runways when traffic failed to follow the thirty degree intercept instruction; causing a conflict.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
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 Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Short final; roughly 1000 - 1100 ft; on VASI; 3 red over white; got altitude alert from tower. Arrested rate of descent landed without incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported getting low on approach to landing.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 7/8
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying a VFR route between two [remote] airports. This route is flown regularly by many pilots; including myself multiple times a week. Due to the congested nature of this route; established VFR reporting points are used to help avoid mid air collisions. I had reported my position two miles prior to the event. Suddenly; Aircraft Y appeared within ten feet of my right wingtip. The regs state 'Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.' While the other aircraft followed the regulations to pass on the right; he did not do so well clear. The close proximity of his passing is an endangerment to everyone on board both aircraft.




Synopsis: A Stationair pilot reported a near mid air collision while being overtaken on a well traveled route where pilots normally self report location for separation.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Operated Flight ABC ZZZ to ZZZ1 and approximately 75 nm east of ZZZZZ [fix] I checked the EICAS status page and noticed ADD for the APU oil.  A couple of minutes later we got a status message stating APU oil was low.  I SATCOMed Dispatch and conferenced Maintenance Control. Decision was made to divert to ZZZ.  No emergency declared - normal arrival.  When maintenance techs were in the cockpit after arrival they stated that the APU oil was checked via EICAS as part of the ETOPS pre-departure service check.  While speaking with the tech they stated that the technician working in the tail just added three quarts of oil which they said is just 'a lot' for the APU doesn't hold much more.  APU started for a leak check and it auto shutdown twice.  It was said that there were no leaks.  The tech stated they found it strange when looking at history that no oil had been added in two months. It was theorized by maintenance that the quantity unit may have been stuck showing full when it wasn't.  Flight was re-dispatched with a different aircraft.  I subsequently found out that the oil quantity unit and oil pressure switch were replaced to fix this problem.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported that a low oil level in the APU resulted in a divert. Maintenance found the APU was several quarts low and that the indicator may have erroneously been showing it was full.