elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to door closure passenger at [seat] XX3 requested to be moved for social distancing. Moved from XX3 to YY1 after door closure.Was told after safety demonstration there was a conflict with passengers in YY1; YY4; and YY6 due to non mask compliance. Made PA announcements on mask policy for everyone on board. Moved passenger from YY1 to Z6.Listened to YYD and YY6 side of story to de-escalate situation. Passengers upset that YY1 was upgraded without charge and non-compliance with mask policy. They did not want to turn back to gate and cause delay.Spoke to passenger at Z6. Listened to her side of story to deescalate situation. Repeated the company mask policy; repeated announcements over PA. Informed flight deck and crew but determined situation had been contained. Continued to monitor both parties through flight. Gave customer care items to YY4; YY6; and XX3.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported it was necessary to move passengers for social distancing issues; and one passenger was non-compliant regarding the face mask policy.
Date: 202104
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ2
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Routine Inspection; In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departing ZZZ while enroute to ZZZ1 Airport; we received an ACARS message from Dispatch stating that the ground crew in ZZZ forgot their electrostatic fogger case on board. I proceeded to call our Flight Attendants to see if they saw that case on board. The A flight attendant stated that she did see this case on board in 1A prior to boarding. She also stated that she thought it was one of the crew bags and it was put in one of the overhead bins. I told her that this was an electrostatic fogger case from ZZZ Operation. I proceeded to let Dispatch know that we found the case. Dispatch told us that ZZZ Operation needed this as soon as possible and if we could bring it to the next flight after landing in ZZZ1. I proceeded to let ZZZ Operations know about the incident and if they could coordinate this with the next outbound flight. After terminating my flight I received a call from the Pilot on Duty stating that I needed to fill out a report. That we possibly carried Hazmat. We had no clue there was Hazmat materials in this case. I'm not sure how they wanted us to know. Furthermore; I don't know how this machine works or what chemicals are used in it. This has never been discussed with flight crews. All that was told to us by Dispatch was that an Electrostatic fogger case was left on board. If we knew we had Hazmat on board we could have easily return or diverted to a nearby airport.




Synopsis: E-170 Captain reported undocumented Hazmat transport by ACARS Dispatch notification stating departure Ground Personnel inadvertently left Hazmat case on board.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While operating on a VFR training flight out of ZZZ; I noticed the voltmeter on the aircraft was beginning to fluctuate slightly. We decided to continue flight but eventually noticed the volts were dropping significantly. At the time we had been in contact with Approach but decided to turn back to ZZZ and notified Approach we were turning back hoping to avoid any serious problems. Within minutes; we notice the volts had gone below 10 volts. At that time; we decided to head to ZZZ1 because it was closer; we were also worried about losing all electrics at night. As we started our initial approach into ZZZ1; we lost all electrical power; transponder; radios; electric instruments and lighting. We decided to continue and eventually landed at ZZZ1 without any problems. After a few minutes we located a phone number for Approach; we were able to contact them to let them know we were alright.




Synopsis: C-172 instructor reported aircraft electrical failure during a training flight.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Be fast to recognize an air quality event.I was flying an A320 from ZZZ to ZZZ1. During the arrival we had an air quality event. The estimated duration of the event was 5 minutes. During the event the power levels did not change. I have experienced this in the same type of aircraft before. There was no evidence of smoke or fire in the cockpit and it was localized. The odor smelled like dirty socks and were mild. It was only in the cockpit. During the time of event; our air supply was the engines. I was able to turn off Pack 1 and isolate the problem within about 15 seconds. I reserve the right to change my statement as more informant becomes available.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fumes event during descent which was described as a 'dirty socks' odor. The flight continued to its destination after the number 1 Pack was turned off.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
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: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
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; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: At cruise Center cleared us direct to 'DRAKE' is what she said. Since DRAKE was not on our flight plan I input the fix DRAKE. The next controller asked where we were going and I replied DRAKE. He said we were cleared to the DRK VOR not the fix. We entered in DRK and continued. I guess we should had clarified with the first controller but she said 'DRAKE' not DRK. Both sides should have clarified the clearance since there is a fix and VOR of the same name and somewhat in line with each other flying east bound. Clarify the clearance.


Second narrative: ATC gave us a direct to routing; verbalizing it 'Aircraft X; you're cleared to 'Drake;' then IRW; then flight plan route. Neither the intersection or VOR (DRAKE or DRK) was on our flight plan. Pilot Flying entered DRAKE and read back 'Drake.' After about 10 minutes; ATC queried whether we were on a vector or direct 'Drake.' After a few back and forths all parties realized the mistake. Original clearance was meant to be 'direct DRK VOR'; and no correction was made when reading back 'Drake.' Both the intersection and VOR were in the same direction; over 400  miles away; and were only separated vertically by 100 miles; so it was roughly same direction. Enough separation from expected routing and track; that ATC inquired about our navigation. Poor job on pilots and ATC in being clear where the aircraft was cleared to. And 'swiss cheese' effect of both waypoints being relatively close to each other and not on the flight plan. Clarify instructions; especially when the point is not on the flight plan.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they flew off course when cleared direct DRAKE which is the name and same pronounciation of a VOR in Arizona and an airspace fix in Colorado.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ACK.Airport, MA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on the ground doing the before-takeoff checklist; during the control check; [the First Officer] experienced the elevator's 'catching' on something. He had turned the [yoke] left; pulled it back; turned it right; and was pushing it back in; when; about half way in on the forward push; the elevator got noticeably stuck for a moment. Pushing it more forcefully caused it to go forward. He then did this check a second time; and when it got caught again; he held it there and asked me to feel it. I felt exactly the same thing: the control was hung up; and when I pushed it harder; it released.We then tried repeatedly to get the control to duplicate this phenomenon; but were unable.This echoes precisely [a previous experience]; when I experienced the 'catch' during my control check on the ground. I remarked on it to [First Officer] at the time; but since after the second time it seemed to have cleared up; we decided that it must have been an anomaly; was fine; and we continued.Since then we have flown numerous legs and done even more control checks without incident and without experiencing this catching/sticking. However; when it happened again this morning; we decided that there may actually be something either loose or in the way somewhere that could be a dangerous issue. The possibility of its sticking in the air and then not releasing would be catastrophic.In retrospect; it may have been wise to have canceled our flight the first time it happened; two days ago. But we were convinced at the time that there was no issue; an anomalous defect that had cleared and couldn't be duplicated. When it happened a second time; though; we felt sure that it needed to be addressed with maintenance.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reported he and the First Officer had noticed an anomaly during the before-takeoff flight control check; involving a 'catch' in the elevator movement.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Climb
Airspace: Class E ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we were cleared to line up and wait; we heard another aircraft instructed to continue for landing 10 miles out. We stayed in position on the runway for what seems longer than usual; possibly for separation from the aircraft that just departed. After takeoff on a heading of 343 at about 8;300 ft. we got a traffic alert immediately followed by a RA with a command to 'descend; descend'. We had reached approximately 8;700 ft. I cautiously began to follow the TCAS command bars on the PFD while slowing the aircraft and maintaining visual contact with the mountains. The red command bars disappeared and ATC issued a low altitude warning. At that point I saw an aircraft descending to the front left of our aircraft that appeared to be within 500 ft. of us horizontally. The TCAS issued another RA with another descend; descend warning. With what I believe to be the conflict aircraft insight; I chose to climb as we were getting close to the mountain in front of us and that seemed to be the safest alternative with a rapidly evolving situation. Once we were clear of the conflict and in the climb with Denver Center; we were given a number to call by the controller stating a possible pilot deviation. Once we landed and completed our post flight duties I called the facility to discuss what happened.Aspen is a very busy airport. While trying to get aircraft in and out on opposing runways; it seems that the tolerances between aircraft departing and arriving have gotten tighter. We sat on the runway for a while before being cleared for takeoff. At that point the conflicting aircraft was on a 10 mile final or so before we were cleared for takeoff. I don't know what the separation standard is supposed to be between arriving and departing aircraft; but I believe in this case the separation between us was too close.




Synopsis: Pilot departing a mountain airport reported a traffic conflict with opposing traffic and climbed even though TCAS told them to descend due to the nearby mountainous terrain.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D FRG
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On final making a GPS approach to RWY 19 at FRG. Wind was about 60 degrees from my right at 14 gusting to 18. At 2 miles out; tower advised of one intersection departure before our arrival. I acknowledged. At 1 mile out; tower advised of 1 full length departure before our arrival. I acknowledged and said that I may have to go around. Tower told the Seminole departing 'No delay.' Seminole said he was rolling. Instead; he sat on the departure end of the runway for several seconds; as I was approaching at 85 knots. Just as the Seminole began his takeoff roll; I did not think that I had enough separation to be comfortable. I initiated a go-around and advised Tower that I was going around and would stay to the right of the runway. Tower said that there was no need to go around; she had adequate separation; and then; as I was already overtaking the departing aircraft; which was now about 400 feet down the runway from the threshold; Tower said; 'Don't go around;' to which I replied; 'I'm going around.' That was an unsafe instruction. Had I been an inexperienced pilot; I may have listened to the instruction and attempted a landing; possibly with less than an ideal outcome. At Republic airport; I frequently am holding short of a runway waiting for a plane on a 3 or 4 mile final; so I applaud the controller's attempt to let an extra departure go before me. I have no problem with having to go around. I was shocked to hear the controller instruct me not to go around. I called the tower and spoke to a different controller and expressed my concerns.




Synopsis: PA28R pilot reported going around at FRG airport contrary to ATC direction when he became uncomfortable with the spacing on the departing aircraft.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Recirculation Fan
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; 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; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had] fumes in cockpit and forward cabin. [We] smelled strong odor of burning rubber and/or plastic shortly after takeoff. Captain gave control of aircraft to me (First Officer). Captain confirmed with A Flight Attendant same odor in forward cabin. Captain declared emergency with ATC and requested return to field for landing. Both pilots donned oxygen masks. Captain accomplished QRH procedure for SMOKE/FUMES. First Officer continued to fly aircraft to uneventful landing. Captain taxied aircraft to gate. Suspect equipment cooling failure.


Second narrative: During climb at approximately 10;000 MSL; strong rubber; musty odor occurred. No smoke visible. Brief [was] given to flight attendants to return. During checklist for fume removal EICAS message for EQUIP COOLING OVHT with associated warning horn in E&E compartment could be heard. ATC vectored us for a very quick approach and landing. All checklists were completed just outside the marker and uneventful landing was made. Odor was gone during taxi; but Equip Cooling message still on and E&E warning horn could still be heard. IRS's turned off during taxi. Maintenance met aircraft; conversations with Maintenance; Customer Service; Scheduling; Dispatch and Chief Pilot were held over the next hour.

Second callback: The Reporter stated that a month prior to this event he and several of his crew became ill following exposure to a musky; dirty socks smell in flight. This event initially had an odd smell which; after several minutes; he determined it to be electrical in nature and not chemical. The emergency declaration he still felt was justified because the E&E horn indicated a cooling failure and an overheat which was verify by the EQUIP COOLING OVHT.

Synopsis: A B757-200 crew declared an emergency and returned to the departure airport when a strong rubber smell was detected after takeoff followed shortly by the EQUIP COOLING OVHT alert caused by a Recirculation Fan failure.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [I was] flying a stadium visual to Runway 29 at night after a 4 1/2 flight. The weather was VFR and reported winds were 180/12. The entire approach was uneventful and routine. We heard a heavy cleared into position on Runway 22L at W to hold at idle power for landing traffic (us). Runway 29 is much shorter than our normal landing runways; so I had 40 flaps and max braking selected for the landing. I intended to touch down within the first 1;000 FT. That put us directly behind the heavy aircraft as we flared. We experienced a strong gust from our left in the flare that we can only guess was from the engines of the heavy in position nearby. The timing of this unexpected crosswind gust was very bad. We were low and slow and power back. A very strong gust rolled us right; I corrected and felt lucky that our wings were nearly level when we touched down. I had very little time or altitude or power to react. I have had my hands this full when landing a plane only once or twice in 40 years; but I also had more warning.




Synopsis: A heavy jet was parked on EWR Runway 22L at Taxiway W when a B737 pass through its idle engine thrust which caused a temporary control loss; but the pilot was able right the aircraft before touchdown.