elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGU.Airport, UT
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF LGU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Touch and Go on Runway 35 at Logan Cache airport during takeoff aircraft behind us went around and as we were climbing out they stayed on top of us. we got a traffic alert and immediately started looking for them and once we saw how close they were we made a turn to the right because there was traffic to the left in the pattern and the other aircraft was to the left and behind [us]. No one was injured and no damage occurred.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC after takeoff from LGU airport.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: R [GEN] DRIVE was MEL inoperative. ETOPS check and MEL checks had been verified in logbook for an international departure. Pilot preflight crew brief included discussion of APU failure enroute. We agreed that APU failure would lead to diversion to 'nearest suitable' airport per QRH. APU OIL QTY EICAS message occurred at approximately about two hours into the flight when Captain was on rest break and called to cockpit. Checklist was verified accomplished. Coordination call to Dispatch and Maintenance Control led to discussion of a recent replacement of an APU relay. Maintenance Control raised the possibility of one restart attempt; which also seemed in agreement with the QRH allowing one restart attempt. Restart was unsuccessful and decision was made to divert to a domestic airport. A somewhat closer airport was considered but given time factors and proximity; the large domestic airport was preferred. We had no problems with diversion. In debriefing; the crew agreed that we benefited from pre-briefing an APU failure. In hindsight; I question whether I should have raised the point with Maintenance Control regarding dispatching this airplane on a fourth trans Atlantic flight relying on continuous APU operation. Also; I believe I erred in attempting an APU restart given the oil quantity fault. Maintenance Control's suggestion and reference to a prior repair as justification for a restart; plus some justification in the QRH was not sufficient given the risk of other complications. Repair efforts revealed a broken bushing as the cause for APU oil loss.




Synopsis: A B767 was ETOPS dispatched with the R GEN DRIVE MEL'ed and had to divert after the EICAS alerted APU OIL QTY and autoshutdown.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; upon selecting Flaps 2; 'FLT CONT flaps fault' on ECAM. We discontinued the approach and performed ECAM procedures and QRH follow up for 'slats; no flaps' landing. Vectors for another visual approach. Performed an uneventful 'no flaps' landing. Weather was clear with unrestricted visibility; therefore we arrived with about 6;800 lbs. fuel. Factoring in :45 min reserve; we had about 25-30 min max. remaining fuel to troubleshoot. More fuel would have made the flight more comfortable.




Synopsis: A319 flight crew member reported a safe 'slats; no flaps' landing after executing a go-around in response to 'FLT CONT flaps fault' ECAM.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X; boarded with a backpack in ZZZ and inflight FA B; noticed he was on oxygen and there was no note of this in our special notes on our manuals. We asked him if he'd had it approved or made CSA aware of it and he said no. It was a [model name] and FA B and I talked with his travel companion; Name and explained that when they get to ZZZ1 they need to see an agent and get approval for the unit to be able to use it on their flight ZZZ1-ZZZ2. We did not switch him over to a Portable Oxygen Bottle (POB) because we were not sure of what flow he needed and did not want to interrupt his oxygen supply that was working for him. They both confirmed they will see an agent in ZZZ1 upon deplaning. No way to have been aware of this until we saw him using it mid flight. None of us could find a list of approved units anywhere on our manuals.Not sure...the backpack was just a normal generic backpack and was stowed for takeoff so until mid flight when we saw him using it we had no knowledge of it. We all tried to search 'approved O2 Concentrator' to see if it was approved but could not find a list on our manuals.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendant reported a passenger using a breathing device during cruise without prior airline approval.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the B FA on Aircraft X. We had a passenger that did not want to wear his mask. Said he had a medical condition. I told him since it was not said or documented in our records [the mask] had to be over his nose if he was not drinking or eating. Passenger was seated in XX1. FA A told me she was talking to him before takeoff. I had to remind him on service. FA D came and said he was not in compliance. We explained to her. Breakdown was in CRM on my part. Allow medical notes from doctors.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was non compliant with face mask policy during flight.  Reporter stated the passenger said he had a medical condition; but it was not noted in the crew's records.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 1.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 55
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Experienced total hydraulic failure approximately 40 NM north of destination airport while receiving vectors for ILS. Requested delay vectors with TRACON while running low hydraulic checklist; alternate gear extension checklist; and partial flap landing checklist. Asked ATC to have emergency vehicles standing by upon landing. Uneventful landing and cleared Runway without incident. Shut down aircraft clear of runway at intersection. Towed to the FBO. Confirmed with ATC via phone that they did not need any more information.




Synopsis: A LJ55 hydraulic system failed as the aircraft was being vectored for an ILS. The pilot declared an emergency; then during delay vectors; completed the manual gear extension; the emergency checklists; and landed uneventfully.
Date: 201708
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We learned after getting to the hotel; one of the main tires had blown up at some stage of flight; assumed landing; which resulted in the tire exploding and damaging the fuselage of the aircraft with a gaping hole. It has not been determined by the flight deck at what stage it occurred. It is concerning to me that at no stage was this alerted to the working flight deck crew. It was significant damage to the airplane which caused the plane to be not airworthy. The only irregular part of our flight occurred shortly after takeoff; just prior to climbing above 10;000 feet; I heard what sounded like a shift in the landing gear. Could not pin point the exact sound; but it raised a concern to myself; and was mentioned to me by 2 other flight attendants sitting by door 2. We mentioned this to the [First Officer]; who said they heard it too; but thought it was a gear shifting or perhaps cargo unsecured but elected to continue and not giving much thought beyond that mention. Flight continued and landed normally. It was only later that night we leaned from the outbound crew what had happened on our flight on landing. Not sure if this event had any connection; but it was worth noting to let everyone know what we heard. We waited for our gate for over 20 minutes on the tarmac and concerns me regarding the severity of the damage and the hole in the fuselage.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being informed later that one of the main gear tires exploded and damaged the fuselage. The reporter was upset for not being informed of the situation that was unfolding while on the aircraft.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working D87 nonradar oceanic sector. Noticed a limited data radar target approximately 30 NM inside my airspace. No Ocean 21 data block...NO PROTECTED PROFILE...NO COORDINATION. Called R86 ATLANTIC Sector to inquire; if they knew who it was. Responded Aircraft X deviating south of course. The aircraft was routed via SLATN inbound to R86/R65. UNSAFE situation; aircraft in nonradar airspace not probed for separation and no flight information in the system...Big Blue Sky Theory...How many more times is this going to happen before something serious happens? Yes it's happened before.  ZNY management was notified of the incident and as far as I know the Mandatory Occurrence Report was filed; but you never know. Separation was not lost because I was able to apply radar separation between all aircraft at FL360. Its a simple fix NO WESTBOUND traffic routed via SLATN....USE JOBOC to the north or MARIG to the south. Deviations can not exceed 60NM left of track into JOBOC; otherwise reroute to MARIG. No restriction on deviation into MARIG....SIMPLE.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller reported recurring unsafe events within an oceanic sector.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Reported to Center cleared direct PROMM on the HUSTN2 Star CLT. After a few minutes ACARS note to call Center on previous frequency 135.05. We asked Center on 124.07 if we needed to return to 135.05 and she said no. Center asked where we were going direct to; and we responded PROMM as cleared. She asked us to call Jax Center upon arrival and gave us a phone number. We noted at the time there were three flights with similar call signs on that frequency. We called ZJX after arrival CLT. The Supervisor said she just wanted to know how we lost contact and that there was no deviations or issues. When I told her of the three similar call signs; she said she would contact the Company and try to get these numbers changed as it was confusing to all; controllers and pilots. She thanked us for the call back and once again said there were 'no' deviations or 'issues'. There seems to be more similar call signs as the airspace becomes more congested. Many times ATC controllers as well as air crew can respond to a similar call sign by mistake. Vigilance and trying to reduce these flight numbers that are very similar in the same airspace at the same time would help.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports possibly accepting a frequency change for another flight due to several similar sounding call signs.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA; Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Sector 38 R-side/D-side combined. Traffic was moderately busy and we had overflights available through the EDW complex which lends to some complexity. I was flashing several aircraft at Joshua Approach to initiate our flash-through procedure. I used 'J' to initiate the handoffs. The automation forwarded the handoffs to J1G instead of J1B. I did not notice in my scan and one of the aircraft penetrated their boundary without a handoff completed. I called for the late point out and redirected the handoff. The controller there took the handoff and flashed it on the Sec 27. This is a repeated problem with Joshua approach's automation. I would recommend their automation be forwarded correctly so the appropriate sector sees the handoff flashing at them.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller reported of an automation problem between ZLA and Joshua Approach. Controller pointed out multiple aircraft using the flash-through procedure. One aircraft did not flash through to the correct sector and the Controller ended up having multiple airspace deviations.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
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: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pleasure flight with 3 souls on board. I was PIC. I announced my 10 mile and then 5 mile location for approach once in proximity to ZZZ. The airport was busy with multiple departing and arriving targets using Runway XX. A Skyhawk was also inbound and announced its position which was about 200 feet above my indicated altitude; same distance and approximate location from airport (2 miles north of the field at that point). I transmitted 'entering the left 45 for XX and looking for that inbound traffic' as I was entering the 45. As a precaution; I entered the downwind lower than pattern altitude to avoid potential conflict; by 300-500 feet. I called my left downwind for Runway XX and about 5-10 seconds later the Skyhawk also called 'left downwind for XX'. About that same time; I had him in sight; approximately 200 feet horizontal/slightly ahead and about 300 feet above my location near midfield on downwind I announced; 'Skyhawk I have you in sight'. He replied; 'Cherokee I don't have you in sight yet'. I responded with; 'Skyhawk; you are on my 3 o'clock just above me'. The Skyhawk responded with 'Cherokee I have you in sight now'. I then requested; 'Skyhawk if you could extend your downwind; I'll turn my base here shortly'. I do not recall if there was a reply from the Skyhawk at that point. Landing was uneventful and I cleared the active as the Skyhawk pilot was on short final.My low pattern entry evasion had prevented a potential incident. The Skyhawk essentially overtook me on the downwind; appearing out of sequence (as I had announced my traffic position reports prior to his and was also at a lower altitude). The owner of the local flight school there in ZZZ approached me when I was leaving and mentioned 'I came in pretty low' on the pattern. I responded with; 'did you see the airplane right above me?' I don't recall his response after that; although he didn't return a friendly wave as I was leaving.The return flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported two aircraft entered the downwind leg at similar locations at non-towered airport. First aircraft flew a lower traffic pattern altitude as a precaution which prevented a NMAC.
Date: 201704
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [I] see on a regular basis that crews are carrying dual outlet; non-Apple; chargers and using them in the aircraft cockpit. I also see crews carrying household electrical cords with a multiple outlet ends to allow multiple Apple chargers to be plugged in and used in the cockpit.The demands and dependence we are placing on the iPad exceed its capability without being able to charge the device inflight. The 757/767 fleet has one outlet and it is probably being overused or used in an unanticipated way. I believe our situation presents a safety hazard for fires from unapproved devices (duel aftermarket chargers) and tripping hazards from 9 foot Apple cords across to the Captains iPad or; from household electrical cords strung across the cockpit.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that he has found crews carrying electrical cords with dual outlets; non-Apple chargers and using them in the aircraft cockpit.