elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground Controller verbally coordinated a BE36 as 'Runway 17L VFR to Waco'; and a VFR NAS strip was posted on my position by Ground Controller. The BE36 called me on Tower frequency ready for take off; I cleared the BE36 for take off on Runway 17L and instructed to proceed on course and after ARTS data tagged instructed the BE36 to contact Departure. It was brought to my attention the next morning that the BE36 had read a clearance of 'cleared direct Waco; five thousand' to Ground Control; though Ground issued no IFR clearance or altitude; only a VFR squawk and Departure frequency; so pilot was assuming he was IFR. I have no recommendation; Ground Control was on headset so there was no way I could hear aircraft requesting IFR clearance or reading a clearance to Ground Control; perhaps if Ground Control had frequencies on loudspeaker I may have been able to question Ground of status of aircraft as IFR or VFR or requested clarification myself from pilot prior to issuing take off clearance.




Synopsis: Local Controller described a departure handled as a VFR when in fact the aircraft was IFR.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the PNF and the First Officer on this flight to ZZZ. On our approach into ZZZ we were slightly high on vectors and then cleared for the visual approach. The Captain PF was at a speed of 230 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS) and was trying to descend and slow to land. He was unable to slow to 200 KIAS as we were entering the Class C airspace and we determined the approach was unstable and executed a go-around. We entered the traffic pattern and landed successfully. I believe the cause is a decrease in proficiency due to reduced flying during the pandemic. We were doing 220-230 KIAS while entering the Class C airspace.




Synopsis: Corporate First Officer reported an unstable approach occurred and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other
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
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival in ZZZ; FA's informed me that they had the dirty sock smell in the aft galley. Maintenance and paramedics were called. Two of the flight attendants chose to go to the hospital for evaluation. The pilots and 3rd flight attendant had no symptoms. Cause: Dirty sock smell due to APU.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported Flight Attendant notification of a 'dirty sock smell' in the aft galley. Maintenance was notified. Two flight attendants received medical evaluation.
Date: 201907
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During loading of flight XXX to LAX; it was noticed that a box was in the foreman cart of LAX terminating city bags to be loaded into pit #4 of this B757.The box had multiple Dangerous Goods Hazardous Materials labels appearing on multiple sides of the box.The Lead for the departure noticed the item while it was in the foreman cart and confirmed with additional [ramp agents] that this was not acceptable to be loaded 'as is' and needed to be further inspected.The passenger who checked in the box was questioned as to the contents and any potential dangers or hazards. The passenger explained that the box was acquired at a local store and was used to pack and transport some frozen fish and fruits. Additionally; it was confirmed that there was no wet or dry ice in the box.It was explained to the passenger that the box would need to be opened and contents inspected for verification that there were no DG (Dangerous Goods) HAZMAT items and that then the labeling would need to be removed before the box could be loaded.




Synopsis: Commercial Airline Load Planning Personnel reported rejecting passenger box for cargo compartment with 'Dangerous Goods' labels.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical/Electronic Panel & Parts
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Crew noted MFD screen blank. Less than 30 seconds later; PM (Pilot Monitoring) in right seat reported increasing heat felt on his legs. Both pilots noted light; acrid odor but no smoke. PM advised ATC; and reported initiation of emergency descent. PF (Pilot Flying) turned off the avionics switch; and turned the battery switch to Emer. Acrid odor dissipated. PM reported heat dissipated. PM coordinated with ATC to find the nearest suitable field for landing. Crew agreed on the second nearest field to position when initiating emergency descent as it had a runway of suitable length and time to descend (40000 ft) was the determining factor for landing in this case. PM ran appropriate checklists and made the excellent recommendation to return the battery switch to ON from Emer to restore anti-skid before landing. This disabled comms; but was done on short final after making appropriate Unicom announcements and determining that there was no other airport traffic. PF taxied in to parking with no further indication of electrical shorting.




Synopsis: CE-560 Captain reports noting his MFD screen blank and a few moments later reports increasing heat on his legs and an acrid smell. The avionics switch is turned off and an emergency descent is initiated for diversion to the nearest suitable airport. The smell and the heat dissipate during the descent.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90; Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were told to expect 28C; however; just before we turned final from downwind ATC told us that our landing runway was changed to 27L. We had noted that other aircraft were being given 27L LOC just prior to our instructions. Both myself and the FO changed our frequencies and I gave a very quick brief on the 27 LOC approach. As we turned final; ATC told us to slow to 180kts until TAFFS; call ORD Tower etc. I manually disconnected the AP; followed shortly by the autothrottles; called for gear down; and manually began slowing the speed and descent while the FO put the LOC (GS out) mins; 1080 ft; in the altitude. I was attempting to descend from 2200 to 1080 ft after the Final Approach Fix while looking outside for the PAPI. The sun was right down the runway and I couldn't pick up the lights because of the glare. I knew I was above the MDA but also realized that the aircraft was lower than it should be at that distance. At the same time ATC informed us that their low altitude alert had gone off and to check our altitude. I leveled the aircraft and continued until I finally could see the PAPI as we got closer. They showed all red for a matter of moments then changed to 3 red; one white. I continued the visual to an uneventful landing. ATC changed the runway on downwind. There was very little time to do a complete briefing. It was a visual backed up by the LOC approach. Although the weather was clear; the sun was at such an angle that it totally obscured the PAPI's and I descended lower than a normal 3 to 1. I suspect as I was attempting to descend to the MAP altitude. ATC should not change runways on such a short notice; however; that being said; with the limitations of the aircraft; I would suggest flying to the FAF mins; set a 700 fpm on the VS and continue to the MAP. Especially if the PAPI's are obscured or there are other visual limitations. Without a GS and cleared for visual approaches without a PAPI system to rely on; we pilots have to be cognizant of aircraft/distance/descent points. Mentally exercising basic 3 to 1 approaches at all times.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert from ORD Tower while descending on a visual approach with LOC backup to Runway 27L. PAPI lights were obscured by the sun.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had been acting as Safety Pilot for an IFR training flight for a friend. The flight was uneventful. Once we got back to Oakland; we decided to do a couple stop and goes for currency. We had each done one landing on [Runway] 28R; when the controller asked us to switch to left close traffic for [Runway] 28L. We complied; and flew the published 600 ft pattern. On downwind; the controller cleared us for the option of [Runway] 28L; and the Pilot Flying read it back and requested a short approach. The controller approved the short approach; and the Pilot Flying read back the approval. Abeam the numbers; we began our short approach for a practice engine out 180 maneuver. On very short final; I noticed a jet cross the [Runway] 28L hold bar and proceed onto the runway. I alerted the Pilot Flying; and he executed a go-around. He then informed the controller that the ground traffic had not passed. I don't not believe a collision was imminent; as our approach was slightly high and we probably would have gone over the jet. However; if we had landed there would have been two planes on the same runway. What's especially troubling is that if we had been lower we almost certainly would have collided on the runway if we had not been able to see the jet. This seems like it was a simple miscommunication between tower and ground controllers; or the tower simply misjudged how long it would take us to execute a short approach. Either way; it was way too close for comfort; and I feel like it should be brought to someone's attention.




Synopsis: Cessna pilot reported avoiding a runway incursion by going around when they observed a jet taxiing past the hold short line.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching the gate to park the aircraft; we observed two wing walkers. Both had their hands in the air indicating that the area was clear and that we should continue parking the aircraft. A marshaller was located under the self-park system guidance indicator. The marshaller and self-park system did not give any indication to stop and we continued to park. Suddenly the marshaller raised his hands in a cross; I immediately applied the brakes. Simultaneously I felt and heard a thump; indicating we had contacted something. We hit a catering truck resulting in damage to the scimitar winglet.


Second narrative: Upon arrival we taxied to [the gate]. The self-park system was on and was providing guidance to park. A Marshaller with a wing walker on the right side were also providing guidance. As we approached the gate the right side wing walker was near a catering truck and walking with the aircraft as we approached the gate. His wands were indicating that the wing would clear the truck. As the right wing neared the truck the wing walker crossed his wands and before I could say stop; the Captain applied the brakes upon seeing the marshaller cross his wands about the time the wing impacted the truck. After we came to a stop; the self-park system was still showing us clear and providing guidance to park. At no time did the self-park system indicate for us to stop. Even when a tug came in to tow us in; the self-park system still did not indicate obstructions in the area.


Synopsis: A B737 wingtip struck a catering truck while pulling into a gate with an apparently inoperative self parking system but guided by a Marshaller who commanded the stop taxiing and set brakes too late.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: DTW Ground Control cleared us to taxi to 3R via K; F; cross 9L; M. We both had our charts out and reviewed them as we both had minimal familiarity with DTW. We taxied on Kilo; past K-12; but prior to K-11; and could not find Foxtrot. I stopped the aircraft and the First Officer asked Ground where F was. The diagram said F was directly to the left of us but all we saw was the de-ice ramp. She told us F was behind us and to do a 180 on K to go back to F. I did and we continued down K looking for F. I saw E-2 on the other side of the deice pad and turned there. We then saw an F [painted] on the concrete. The F taxiway is not in the same place as depicted on the charts. We continued to the runway. There were no traffic conflicts.When we got to altitude; we pulled out the charts and reviewed them. We could find no charts that depicted F in the same place that it is on the airport. There were no notes about this. I may have missed something but I do believe this was all very confusing. F is depicted to be right near the spot which is the fire station. Not north of the deice ramp.




Synopsis: A B737-500 flight crew was unable to locate Taxiway F at DTW. After seeking assistance from Ground Control they located a painted ramp marking for F which was not consistent with the location depicted on their commercially produced airport page.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Normal approach into ZZZ; at appropriate airspeed 65-70 kts. Touched down and applied braking and aircraft veered left off the runway. Left runway all wheels into the grass to a full stop. Engine and airframe was in operational condition requested to taxi back to park and did so with not issues.




Synopsis: Private Pilot flying C172 departed runway during landing rollout.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft departing ONT on the PRADO departure are assigned the Riverside Sector frequency of 135.4. After Riverside talks to the departure; the next frequency will be 134.0 for the Hemet Sector. A B737 departed and by passed 135.4 and called 134.0. When asked where he got the frequency he replied it was on the chart. The chart has incorrect frequencies in that 134.0 and 119.65 should not be used for ONT departures. The danger is that Hemet has control for these aircraft and may think that the Riverside Controller no longer needed an altitude restriction and climb the aircraft when in fact the Riverside Controller never spoke to the departure. If the Riverside Controller had traffic for the departure and issued an altitude restriction; then the departing aircraft calls Hemet on departure; and Hemet issues a climb it could cause a dangerous situation.  Change the frequencies on the chart!




Synopsis: SCT Controller voiced concern regarding the frequencies published on the PRADO SID from ONT; noting operational needs and concerns.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: After deplaning; mechanics were called to retrieve a phone from under a passenger seat. Flight attendants then searched galley carts for the phone; unaware the passenger stayed on board. Flight attendants were told the phone was found; and to leave the aircraft. After landing; Flight Service met the flight; informing us a passenger had been still onboard; for a brief time; without minimum crew.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported that while searching for a passenger's phone the passenger was left on the plane without the minimum crew required on board.