elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: There was a lot of hazardous weather in the region: high winds at most airports to the south; low IFR most places along the coast; convective activity around [the area]; and a SIGMET for turbulence and LLWS on the east side of the [mountains]. I chose ZZZ because it was one of the only airports I could find that would keep me out of all the (above) weather. Still; I was expecting to encounter some ice and some turbulence on the flight. Enroute to ZZZ; we encountered mostly smooth air; and light-to-moderate chop turbulence for about 1/4 of the cruise segment; approximately as we flew over [a mountain]; we encountered a brief stretch of severe turbulence: I was unable to control the airplane for what I think was about 20 seconds; aside from bringing the power back to 400 LBS per side and keeping the aircraft oriented top-side-up.During this time we had rather violent altitude fluctuations of approximately +/- 300 feet; heading changes of +/- 30 degrees. All three occupants fortunately were securely seat belted; so we did not sustain any injuries. After the air smoothed out again; we were able to initiate our descent into ZZZ and continue the flight without incident. On the ground in ZZZ; I considered whether or not to fly back to ZZZ1 in similar weather conditions. Based on the fact that we only encountered the severe turbulence in one location for a brief time; and the fact that I was planning to use different routing and different altitude for the leg home; I decided to fly back to ZZZ1 and did so with no further incident. Upon arrival at ZZZ1; I notified [the Operations Manager] and he offered to research whether or not it would be prudent for us to do any inspections on the aircraft. A post-flight walk-around inspection did not reveal any damage to the aircraft.




Synopsis: King Air Captain reported encountering severe turbulence prior to landing and then departing again prior to completion of a severe turbulence inspection.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb out Flight Attendant reported a loud 'rushing air' noise coming from Main Cabin Door 1L. Cockpit indications were all normal. After inspection by cockpit crew it appeared that the main cabin door was improperly closed on the ground. Right side interior main cabin door hinge cover was out of place not allowing the cabin door to properly seal. Coordinated with Dispatch to return to ZZZ so Maintenance Technicians could inspect door. After returning to ZZZ; Maintenance found door to have been improperly closed. Corrective action: close door properly; no further action required. After discussion with Dispatch and Maintenance Technicians; aircraft was refueled; re-released; new [Maintenance document] signed-off; and proceeded to ZZZ1 without further incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported Flight Attendant reported air leak at cabin Main Entry Door after takeoff.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just off the STAR; we were being vectored by ATC for an anticipated approach to RWY 16R SEA from the east. We received a clearance to proceed direct AGANE. We programmed the FMC; EXEC; LNAV and direct we went. About 3 NM from AGANE we queried ATC whether they wanted us to proceed inbound on the localizer; or hold at AGANE...they replied 'standby.' LNAV just began turning the aircraft toward the next waypoint inbound on the approach; 'CELAK' when ATC gave us the approach clearance 'turn left 190; cross CELAK at or above 4;000; cleared for the ILS 16R'. We complied; pushed HDG SEL on the MCP; set heading 190; armed the APPCH mode and also armed the second [autopilot] 'B' for the CAT III ILS as requested and cleared.Reading the FMA on the PFD; VOR/LOC was captured immediately and we proceeded inbound...but something looked wrong. On the MAP display we noticed we were tracking east of course; approaching BUGNE we were about 0.3 east of course; raw data confirmed this; as well as a visual to the airport ahead. I recognized this as a 'Standoff' and disengaged automation; turned off the Flight Directors...then back on; rebuilt the approach and automation just outside BUGNE. The Glide Slope captured at this point and our descent rate slowed...so did our approach speed; the Autothrottles did not get re-engaged during the 'rebuild' of the approach and automation. Speed got down to 127 knots referencing a target speed set at what I believe was 139 knots. Power was manually set; Autothrottles were re-engaged. We were stabilized by the Glideslope Intercept Altitude (GSIA) 'FINKA' and had a successful CAT III Autoland rollout.This was a training flight with a new First Officer.ATC's late approach clearance combined with FMC LNAV functions (and interface with APPCH mode/immediate capture) caused a control wheel position that I believe put the aircraft into an automated 'Standoff Mode.' The recognition and subsequent rebuilding of the automation and timing of all the above resulted in the Autothrottles not being re-engaged.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported deviating from cleared track when the aircraft entered a 'standoff' condition.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback from gate in ZZZ we taxied to runway XX and were caught up in a lot of ground traffic congestion from a thunderstorm that had prevented take offs and landings. While sitting on the taxiway in line for our delayed takeoff; we noticed a smell that we had noted after engine start and initial taxi was becoming more irritating and slightly caustic to us. We called the flight attendants to see if they noticed the smell and initially they did not but later as they walked the cabin closer to the cockpit noticed the smell also. We made a write up in the logbook and broke the MRD (Maintenance Release Document). We then called Maintenance Control and talked to the Airframe Controller who said to return to the gate for further investigation by Maintenance and turn off bleeds and packs. We told the Tower that we needed to return to the gate and he began to move aircraft as able to allow us to proceed back to the gate. We donned oxygen masks as a precaution and taxied back to the gate without incident. At block in; Maintenance met us and we filled out a form for Maintenance to help identify the source of the sour smell. I also notified the Duty Manager as per the FOM. There was no ensuing discussion with the Duty Manager regarding the odor from an unknown source; only discussion regarding crew legality.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a ground return to gate due to caustic odor throughout the aircraft while waiting in line for takeoff.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OGD.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] was out practicing commercial maneuvers; speaking with SLC Approach on 121.1; [and] was completing a clearing right hand 360 turn to start transition to eights on pylons [when] I saw a dark blue streak out of the corner of my eye. I then heard the engine/wing noise of an aircraft; I turned my head the opposite way; and saw a dark blue/yellow aircraft fly in the opposite direction. The aircraft was between 150-200 feet directly below me. The aircraft did not pop up on ADSB; and after asking approach if they had a primary target; they initially reported no; but then said they saw a primary target .4 miles away from me in opposite direction. This happened around 8 NM from OGD; and 4 NM from the OGD VOR (285 radial).




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC in the vicinity of OGD airport.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When flap lever was moved from 20 to 25 on ILS final; flap gauge needles split; then stopped.  EICAS message 'TE FLAP DISAGREE.'  Went around.  Ran checklist.  Landed with flaps as set without incident.  During event; attempted to phone patch with Maintenance through Dispatch.  Unable to make contact.  Fuel was an issue; so did not delay landing for further communication attempts.  ATC handled situation very well.


Second narrative: ILS approach with gear down Flaps 20.  Selected Flaps 25 and flaps stopped between indication of 20 and 25; EICAS TE FLAPS DISAGREE illuminated.  Initiated a go-around with Tower; ran the checklist for the EICAS and returned. Landed IAW checklist.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew experiences a TE flap disagree EICAS message when the flaps are selected to 25 degeees during approach.  A go-around is initiated and the QRH is consulted; resulting in a landing at the current flap setting.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D TXK
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: TXK Tower had been doing VA to RWY 13. I had Aircraft X on frequency requesting LOC [Localizer] BC [back course] runway 04 circle to land runway 22. Tower just changed runway to runway 22. I had descended Aircraft X to 2000 and direct MARIE for the BC to runway 04. Tower called and requested release on Aircraft Y. I released him runway heading to 7000; thinking he was departing to the northeast. Then I requested Aircraft X BC to RWY 04 circle to land runway 22. Tower approved my request and even asked if I wanted Aircraft Y to turn right on departure. I said no just give him runway heading thinking he was departing Northeast. Aircraft Y departed and when he tagged up was the first time I realized that he was departing southwest. I turned Aircraft X left and climbed him to 3000; I turned Aircraft Y right and amended his Altitude to 2000 since he was out of 1700.No explanation other than I had it in my head that Aircraft Y was departing northeast and the two aircraft where never going to be a problem. A serious brain [lapse] and I am extremely disappointed of my performance.

Callback: Spoke with Controller and he said that he should have listened or questioned the Tower when they asked if he wanted a right turn. They do not use any type of placards when running an ODO and are just expected to remember the operation. Controller also stated that he had a good relationship with the Tower but many controllers are always chewing out the TXK Tower controllers; so that is his guess as to why the Tower let the aircraft go; and possibly saw the arrival on the D-Brite. He also stated that he will be giving a team briefing on his error to show what happened and how it could have been prevented.



Synopsis: ZFW Controller reports of an operational error caused by him thinking an aircraft was coming off of a different runway than it did.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff plane began going to left. Heard clicking noise repetitively. Captain rejected takeoff. Around 100-ish knots. Not V1.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported the Captain rejected the takeoff when the aircraft drifted left during the takeoff roll.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CCR.Tower, CA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D CCR
ATC / advisory: Tower CCR
Second aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was On the Job Training Instructor (OJTI) on ground and FD/CD combined. Aircraft X landed runway 19R and local instructed them to turn left on taxiway C and hold short runway 19L; which they did. Aircraft Y landed runway 19L and was instructed to continue down to taxiway L and turn left and to contact ground. Aircraft Z was in left closed traffic for runway 19L and was on final for runway 19L. Without looking up tower told Aircraft X to cross runway 19L and contact ground on the other side while Aircraft Z was on short final (about 300 feet from runway threshold). I called out 'on final.' The Local Controller then instructed Aircraft X to hold short runway 19L and apologized to them. Aircraft X stopped on the hold short bars but did not cross them; nor did he cross the runway edge line. Local was preoccupied with personal distractions at his position and I believe that he forgot about Aircraft Z. I believe that if he had been looking out the window he would have easily seen Aircraft Z on short final. I believe that all personal materials and electronics should be banned from the tower cab. Not just in the off position or at a charging station; but in lockers in the break room. It's too easy for someone to have distractions put away while management is in the cab; but once they leave items on the back counter can become a distraction.  By banning all personal items and electronics and doing random checks I believe more focus would be paid to traffic outside. Some controllers have already adopted this practice voluntarily.




Synopsis: Ground Control instructor hears Local Control cross an aircraft with an aircraft on short final. Local stops the crossing; but the aircraft is on the hold short bars. Local Control was distracted with personal issues and did not look up when giving the crossing instruction.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We flew a MAX. Several times in all phases of ground and flight ops; the MAX alerting systems loudly came through the headsets interrupting our ability to hear ATC. 'APPROACHING RUNWAY'; 'ON RUNWAY'; 1000 ft.; altitude alerting; '2500'; '1000'; etc.; sound through the aircraft headset rather than the speakers. Volume is not controllable. We were required several times to ask ATC to repeat themselves. In a very busy communications environment; this is unnecessarily distracting.




Synopsis: B737 MAX First Officer reported the aircraft alerting system volume is extremely loud. Alerts interrupt all other communications.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; MEL; Staffing; Software and Automation; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight was signed and released by morning shift without applying the MEL fuel penalty of MEL 28-XXA. After flight release and review; the afternoon shift noticed the error; corrected it; and re-released the flight with MEL 28-XXA applied correctly.This MEL was missed due to incredibly high dispatch desk workload; and un-forecast hazardous weather in every part of the country. These factors and the resulting task saturation lead to an incredible amount of additional flight planning time that was rushed due to the demand that flights which do not actually calculate for up to an hour past morning shift end time are signed with that dispatchers name.Workload is excessive and borderline disorienting leading up to and through shift turnover. At no point should there be any more 15 flights airborne per desk at one time; and yet 16-25 flights airborne at once has become the norm in the past few months. Perhaps the threshold for signing un-calculated flight plans should be 15 minutes past end of shift. This should allocate plenty of time for the oncoming dispatcher to review the work of the A.M. shift and sign the plan with their name. This alleviates the turnover workload; and provides the A.M. shift time to review their work and flight follow.


Second narrative: I reported for duty; 15 minutes in; I noticed that flight had a wing tank aft fuel MEL (28-XXA).  This MEL calls for 5;000 lbs of MEL fuel.  In error the previous dispatcher failed to allocate that fuel as MEL fuel.  I sent a revised release and the flight departed without incident.  I have advised the dispatcher to file a report as well.


Synopsis: Dispatchers reported a flight was signed and released without the application of an MEL.