elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Hawker 4000
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had loaded bags and passengers the other pilot had shut the baggage door. Before starting engines all 4 doors were verified as closed. Upon takeoff before V1; around 90 knots; we get a door open CAS message. It was acknowledged; and I made the decision as PIC of that leg to abort the takeoff. We taxied off and shut down the left engine. We looked on the synopsis [page] and it showed baggage door open. I went outside and saw the aft baggage door was actually open by a few inches. Further removing panels (with Maintenance on the phone assisting - and flight already scrubbed); we discovered that the door locking mechanisms was in fact failed/broken. Come to find out a metal rod had come out during takeoff and unlocked the door. The door was written up; a mechanic flew in and fixed the issue.




Synopsis: Hawker pilot reported a rejected takeoff due to a cargo door warning and a failed door lock mechanism.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: JFK departs two runways in the evening whenever possible to mitigate departure delays. Tonight with visibilities greatly reduced the Tower was unable to see the intersection departure point for our second departure runway. In order to LUAW on the second departure runway (we have an intersection departure waiver) the Supervisor had the Airport Operator close the end of the runway; so the intersection was now the full length. I cannot believe that is the intent of the 7110.65 but can find nothing to substantiate my point. There must be clarification in the 7110.65 as to the legality of closing the runway to amend the term intersection.




Synopsis: JFK Controller questioned the practice of ATC having the airport temporarily close portions of a runway; eliminating an 'intersecting situation' allowing LUAW and full use of the runway.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X was a Seattle departure. S46 departure controller issued 'direct ARRIE' which is on his route; and a very common fix for direct. The pilot (non-native English speaking) read back ARRIE; and even pronounced 'ARRIE' when asked; but on further questioning had spelled it 'ARRUE' which was also on his flight plan. This put him in direct conflict with the MARNR and JAWBN arrivals. I gave him a heading of 250 while we figured out what was going on. At that time; the departure controller called to tell me it didn't look like Aircraft X was going to ARRIE; and I informed him that I'd already turned him. Both ARRIE and ARRUE are on J523. I don't know if aircraft have QWERTY keyboards; but for similar fixes to have only one letter different that are adjacent to each other on the keyboard may be a contributing factor. Rename either the ARRIE or ARRUE fix to something that is not similar to another fix on the airway.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller reported of an aircraft that went to an incorrect fix causing conflict with arrivals. The fix names were almost identical and off by one letter.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was given the task to replace the rudder trim actuator on Aircraft X. Starting the job it was found that the old actuator had been removed already and the cockpit breakers had been pulled and locks installed in the hydraulic shut off valves had been installed. After installing the new actuator and an inspection check for safety and security of the actuator we began reactivating hydraulics to perform the rudder travel and the rudder trim system test. I went into the cockpit with Mechanic Y and began proceeding; Mechanic Z was also at the cockpit doorway. I then began reading off the necessary breakers to activate hydraulics per the maintenance manual to Mechanic Y with Mechanic Z present in the cockpit entryway. As I read the breaker numbers Mechanic Y pulled the tags and reset the breakers. Electrical power was turned on and hydraulics. After that we accomplished the rudder travel check and the rudder trim system test ref the maintenance manual. Then closed the rudder access panels we then signed the appropriate write ups off. A write up was then generated by the lead mechanic stating a test flight was required according to the manual pulled for the original write up.




Synopsis: Technician reported confusion with pass down information when taking over a task.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
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 STL
ATC / advisory: Tower STL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When crossing the final approach fix to Runway 12R at 2400 ft on a visual approach; we spotted a black colored drone hovering approximately 400 ft below us and just to the right of our approach path. We then reported it to the STL Tower Controller upon landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported sighting a drone 400 feet below and just to the right of final approach fix to Runway 12R at STL.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On [our] flight there was a flight control anomaly. Throughout the flight everything was normal. As we approached the start of the arrival; Center issued us a vector. Using heading mode we started turning to that heading. As the aircraft started the turn the autopilot disengaged and we heard the 'autopilot' aural warning.I pressed the AP/TRIM disconnect button to cancel the aural warning and noticed the control wheel was difficult to move in roll. I asked the FO (First Officer) to fly to see what his opinion was. The consensus was that the control wheel was unusually stiff in roll. After reengaging the autopilot and using FMS Nav on the arrival the autopilot disengaged for a second time. I reengaged the autopilot and discussed with the FO about possible scenarios. I felt like the aircraft was safe to fly and there should be no problem in continuing and landing safely at [the destination] as we had full control of the aircraft albeit with heavy control force on the ailerons. As we descended and after disengaging the autopilot manually; the control force was normal and we had an uneventful landing. I wrote up the anomaly in the logbook and Maintenance came out; ran a bunch of tests and couldn't find anything wrong. The logbook was signed off but I refused the aircraft for our next leg.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Captain reported experiencing high aileron control forces during the flight. During post-flight inspection; Maintenance did not find anything wrong.
Date: 201601
Location: SEQM.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I would like to express my concerns related to the recent change of removing the airport qualification for (SEQM) Quito; Ecuador. My concerns are based on my experience of several factors that affect (or potentially can affect) the successful and safe operation of this particular flight. The fact that no major safety issues or incidents have resulted is a tribute to the experience and skill of our flight crews currently operating these flights. Any argument trying to justify this to a lack or low threat environment (similar to regular domestic flying) is naïve and shortsighted at best; and fails to recognize the level of experience that helps to mitigate these threats. If such; is perhaps due to inadequate methodology used to quantify the associated risk without a more comprehensive and contextual approach.Similar to (SKBO) Bogota; Colombia but different from (MMMX) Mexico City; Mexico the initial approach starts above 18;000 (and not uncommon above FL 200). This is different from most; if not all; domestic approaches system wide; which represents some flaps and energy management challenges; depending on ATC and traffic.Alternate airports may and are usually affected by volcanic activity. Fuel and routing does not indicate realistic route clearances nor accounts for terrain conditions. Low visibility conditions culminate; at times; in go-arounds to these alternate airports with little or no room to spare.It is not uncommon for takeoffs from SEQM to be at or close to maximum performance. An engine failure under such conditions can prove more than a challenge; even to the most seasoned and locally experienced flight crew.The issue is not if our pilots can accurately fly an approach or a depicted engine failure procedure; but all the other elements that come to play with operating in this particular environment. It cannot be expected of a flight crew who has never been there to read some notes and fully understand all these elements and how they can interact to the detriment of the flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain was concerned about the removal of special qualifications for operations into SEQM.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight began from ZZZ as second leg of duty day.  Start; taxi and takeoff were uneventful.  Shortly after reaching cruise altitude of FL280; we noticed a low oil qty (0%) and dropping oil pressure (approximately psi). I called for QRH and Captain began running Low Oil Pressure Checklist.  While accomplishing the checklist; the oil pressure dropped below 15 psi and entered the Warning (Red) regime.  This drove us to shutdown the #1 engine.  Captain advised ATC and a gradual descent to FL 250 was initially begun.  After the shutdown was completed; we elected to begin diverting to ZZZ1 as it was only 50 miles away.  ATC; Flight Attendants and dispatch were all provided with necessary information to assist us as we requested Rwy XXL; but due to heavy traffic and closure of XXC; ATC requested we use XXR.  Landing data was run by both crew and dispatch and stopping distance was sufficient on the shorter runway.  While descending; I was momentarily distracted by the runway change and while simultaneously slowing to 200 kts Inattention caused us to slow to approximately 189 kts and we received an 'Airspeed Low' warning.  I accelerated back to 210 kts and requested Flaps 5.  We executed a normal approach and landing with 5 extra kts of speed due to a '10 kts of gain' on final report.  Once we landed; we exited the runway and requested Fire Chief to check us out.  After receiving the all clear; we taxied uneventfully to the gate and accomplished all checklists.  All events were debriefed in accordance with company debrief card.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports inflight shutdown and airspeed low warning in descent.
Date: 202003
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working our flight outbound we were instructed to put the headsets on. First of all; we are in a pandemic situation across the world. Secondly these headsets are not being sanitized after all flights.  Dirty and transferring germs to everyone wearing them.  Why are we still wearing these headsets when we can be wearing our own personal headsets or hearing protection? It makes no sense why we are contaminating our own work group.  I can see the pushback driver using the headset to communicate with the pilots but for wing walkers to be using this is unsafe.  There are limited supplies for cleaning and yet we are being told to wear this. What happens when its hot? Still wear them during this pandemic?




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp agent reported being uncomfortable with a company procedure requiring wearing shared headsets amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; 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 Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb out (400 or 500 ft.) we heard a call from Medical saying that 'something's burning'. I looked behind and noticed the cabin was beginning to fill with a smokey hazy layer. The temperature in the airplane had increased and now the smoke was reaching the cockpit. I reset both bleed air valves in case we had a stuck valve; but this did not change anything. I told FO (First Officer) to turn off all fans in case that is the cause. I looked back again and I could visible see the smoke rising out of the rear right wall panel. We stopped the climb at 2;500 ft.; [advised ATC] and I made the decision to return back to ZZZ. I assumed control of the airplane and radios while FO completed checklist and set us up on the approach and calculated the weight of the airplane. He advised me that we were currently 500 lbs. overweight; I made the decision to still continue to the airport as I did not know the cause of the smoke and did not want to waste any time burning off extra fuel. We ultimately made a safe left base visual approach and landed 300 lbs. overweight. We were able to taxi into the ramp and shutdown and safely exited the airplane. We followed checklist and [Company] SOP.




Synopsis: Learjet-35 Captain reported a fumes event during climb resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the FLOSI3 RNAV arrival into Newark after passing the CRANK intersection; ATC vectored us off the arrival heading 230 and assigned us to descend from 7000 MSL to 4000 MSL. The vector placed us about 5 miles behind a VFR aircraft at 3500 MSL. The VFR aircraft was also heading roughly 230. We were overtaking the VFR aircraft with approximately 40 knots of overtake. There was a 600' broken cloud deck from 3500' to 4100' MSL which kept us IMC. ATC pointed out the VFR traffic but we told them we were not visual (IMC). At roughly 1 to 2 miles from the VFR traffic and leveling at 4000' our TCAS showed the traffic climbing. At inside of a mile (estimated based on TCAS); I perceived an impending conflict based on the TCAS trend and our over-take. I turned off the autopilot and initiated an aggressive climb. Moments after initiating the climb; the TCAS RA aural alert sounded with an initial descend command followed immediately by a climb command. I followed the climb command with the vertical speed in the green until 'clear of conflict' was heard which happened at about 4500' MSL. The Captain informed ATC that we were climbing as a result of the RA. ATC acknowledged and assigned us back down to 4000' MSL. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: First Officer reported executing an aggressive RA TCAS command in IMC following ATC's vectors off the assigned STAR.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Fuel Filter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise the 'Fuel Bypass' warning light illuminated on the left engine. We completed the procedure in the QRH and decided to divert. We declared an emergency with ATC and proceeded to the divert airport uneventfully and landed. Upon gate arrival; we terminated the emergency with Tower.




Synopsis: A B-737-800 crew completed the QRH; declared an emergency and diverted after the FILTER BYPASS warning light alerted.