elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was in the forward part of ac greeting passengers as A position. We had boarded about 6-10 passengers when I received a call from the FA in aft of cabin. She asked me to look in cabin to see if I saw a haze in the cabin and if I smelled an odor. I did see a haze in the cabin and I did smell an odor that smelled like burning plastic. The other FA called to the flight deck and asked the Captain or First Officer to come through and smell the odor. In the meantime the Captain looked in the log book and had seen a pattern of hydraulic fluid leaks being checked/fixed. He immediately had the passengers and crew members exit the aircraft as the fumes are very toxic. We deplaned and at the advice of the Captain had the paramedics come and take a look at us. We then went to another gate and flew to ZZZ1. We deplaned and got on another aircraft to go to ZZZ2. About 3-4 hours into the flight I started to notice that my lungs were burning as well as my throat burning and head was hurting. I told this to the other Flight Attendants in the back who had been on the aircraft with me with the noxious fumes earlier and they too indicated they had the exact same symptoms. When we arrived at the hotel; we called Global Lifeline / MedLink who advised us to seek immediate medical assistance. We went to the ER where we were evaluated and told to follow up with our doctor if we had any more issues.We have not confirmed what caused this to happen but it appears there could have been a leak of hydraulic fluid seeping into the cabin when the APU was turned on.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight attendants reported smoke and odor during boarding. Captain had the entire crew exit the aircraft. Flight attendants reported after several more flights health effects from the fumes and reported going to the Emergency Room.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain
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 ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Intake Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach [eight mile final for the ILS]...at approximately 2;500 FT we selected TAI for the engines as we began to enter icing conditions (a cloud deck from approximately 2;500 FT to 800 FT). This was the first time during the flight that we used the TAI. The Number Two Engine TAI showed a disagreement indication: bright light on the overhead panel and a yellow indication on the engine instruments. We cycled the TAI several times to no avail. Although the 'correct' response would have been to go around; climb to a non-icing altitude; run the QRH; and continue the flight; given the lack of fuel available (approximately 6;900 LBS); and at least a 200-300 mile flight to find non-icing conditions (if not much more) and the knowledge of the system and the QRH procedures combined with a very thin cloud deck; we chose to continue the approach rather than waste fuel on what would have been a futile attempt to 'fix' the issue. In short; we knew we were going to have to descend through the deck with the TAI inoperative no matter what. The TAI valve circuit breaker was in.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information].


Synopsis: Upon entering icing conditions on final approach; B737 flight crew received Engine Thermal Anti-Ice inoperative indication for the Number Two Engine and continued the approach to an uneventful landing.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was providing Radar OJT at Sector 25/26 in area 3 at ZDC. We took radar on a departure leaving HSE direct to CHS from Cherry Point Approach Control. The aircraft was in a slow climb to FL220 southwest bound and entered W122 after the appropriate point out was made and accepted by the W122 Giant Killer Controller. It is always important to keep a constant scan while controlling air traffic and even more important when providing Radar on the job training. I noticed a limited data block indicating FL209 heading due north towards Aircraft X who again was in his slow climb leaving FL200 for FL220. When we called W122 to see what their aircraft was doing we were told that he was 'VFR at FL200.' VFR in the flight level does not exist in the en-route environment. Interestingly enough Aircraft X told us he was IMC when my trainee made the traffic call for the Aircraft Y that was on a course to merge with our target. I instructed my Developmental to put Aircraft X on a 270 heading which was accomplished in a timely manner and kept the targets from merging.There seems to be a discrepancy between military separation standards and en-route standards; again VFR in the flight levels is not a valid mode of operation in the en-route environment. This was clearly an unsafe operation that is somehow OK with the military controllers at Navy Giant Killer. I don't know what was going on behind the scenes on the Giant Killer side of operations; but they did accept the point out for Aircraft X to traverse their airspace in the climb. I don't know an exact mileage for the event; but I do know that standard separation (5 NM; 1;000 FT) was broken. This is clearly unsafe. I also believe that the fact that IMC conditions did exist kept the pilot of Aircraft X calm; had he made visual contact with Aircraft Y I think he would have been quite concerned. The military should have to enforce en-route separation when allowing IFR traffic to enter their airspace while under ARTCC Control.




Synopsis: En-route Controller reports of VFR aircraft at FL200 operating with adjacent facility while he was directing IFR traffic to avoid the VFR aircraft. VFR doesn't exist above 17;500 FT.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was notified about a report of a wrong surface landing. I was the Controller on the midnight shift.  I cleared Aircraft X for Runway XXC; but the Aircraft landed Runway XXR. Approach switched the aircraft on an extended base for the visual approach [to] Runway XXC. The pilot checked on the frequency for Runway XXC. I cleared the aircraft to land for Runway XXC. After I cleared the plane to land the janitorial guy comes to the Tower cab to vacuum the Tower and empty the trash. I usually go opposite of him so we can keep our space (we had our mask on) for social distancing. When he finished cleaning the Local 3 position I recognized the aircraft was short final to Runway XXR. I knew the runway had no vehicles on it because my strip bay showed no vehicle above Runway XXR bay header. I let the aircraft land Runway XXR due to the critical phase in flight. I taxied the aircraft to the ramp after the aircraft landed safely. In the past Approach would call me on the shout line to remind me that this aircraft is set up on the wrong approach. By me not being at the position walking around the Tower cab I did not recognize the aircraft on approach for the wrong runway.The recommendations I would use to prevent this wrong surface landing is to observe an aircraft turn onto the right approach for the right runway. If that pilot makes a mistake turning on to the wrong approach I can either send the aircraft around or correct the aircraft to land on the proper runway; or I can help the pilot get visual for the runway the pilot is lined up for and clear the plane to land for that runway. The key is catching the aircraft turning on the approach early enough so I can correct the pilot.




Synopsis: ATC Tower Controller reported an aircraft landed on the wrong runway and cited social distancing distraction during a janitorial service in the Tower as a contributing factor.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I took off in my J3C-65 that I had just purchased the week prior. I was the sole occupant of the aircraft and carried about 9 gallons of fuel on board. During the cruise phase of my flight; I heard a loud bang which followed by my engine running extremely rough. I searched for landing sites; but still was producing engine power and maintaining altitude. I was approximately 4 miles southwest of my destination at the time. Between me and my destination; there were no suitable landing sites so I elected not to continue and execute a forced landing. Upon the start of my approach; the engine quit completely and I proceeded to execute the approach under no power. The landing was made safely with no damage to any property; or the aircraft. The CTAF frequency I was monitoring was 122.8; but I never made any emergency radio calls.




Synopsis: J3 pilot reported executing a safe and damage-free forced landing after the engine failed in flight.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was testing my oxygen mask; while looking at the Crew Oxygen Pressure; I observed the pressure drop from 1;870 PSI to 1;800 PSI in about 10-seconds and not recover. A second test resulted in a similar result: the Crew Oxygen Pressure dropped and did not recover. Maintenance was notified and discovered the Crew Oxygen Bottle Valve was not fully open. The valve was fully opened and safety wired by Maintenance. Crew Oxygen Pressure did not drop during subsequent tests of my oxygen mask. As the Crew Oxygen Bottle Pressure was about 1;900 PSI at the start of my first mask test; I suspect the oxygen bottle was recently installed. Ensure all maintainers are familiar with the proper procedure for B737 Crew Oxygen Bottle installation.




Synopsis: While performing a Crew Oxygen Mask Check on a B737-800 aircraft; a Captain observed the Crew Oxygen Pressure drop from 1;870 PSI down to 1;800 PSI in about 10-seconds and not recover. Maintenance found the Crew Oxygen Bottle Valve not fully opened.
Date: 201807
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Was on ILS to XXL at ZZZ. Set MAA (Maximum Authorized Altitude) of 3;000 feet. in MCP window at GS Intercept. Descending through 3;000 feet. We received three Altitude Caution Alerts. While trying to reset and cancel the Caution Alerts we missed two radio calls with ATC. Because of the problems with canceling the Caution Alerts and resolving the missed calls from ATC; we probably missed completing the Landing Checklist.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that the Landing Checklist wasn't completed due to Altitude Alerts and missed ATC calls.
Date: 201909
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: ACARS
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon logging in I saw a CALL ME message from Aircraft X. I responded that I was coming up on [the radio]; and proceeded to call over the radio to them. After no response for 3 minutes; I messaged them a second time; and a third after another 5 minutes. With no response over the ACARS or radio; at 18 minutes I called the ATC coordinator and asked them to see if ATC was in contact with the flight. When the coordinator came back and said the flight was in contact with ATC with no mentioned issues; and seeing they were on a standard descent path; I opted to assume things were normal and figured maybe it was an error message; though unsure why they weren't responding to me. About 30 minutes after they were into the gate; I got a call from the Captain and he explained that he had asked for the previous dispatcher about an FDC NOTAM mentioned in the ZZZ ATIS after being unable to find it in the paperwork. She had sent the entire NOTAM package to the printer in response; and he said it tied up the printer for the rest of the flight; which blocked their ability to get landing data or to receive my responses to their call me until after they had landed. The pilot stated he would be filing [a report] about it.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that flight crew reported a previous dispatcher had sent an entire NOTAM package to aircraft printer which tied it up entire flight.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Airport Personnel; Ramp; Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Multiple employees are being notified by management that they have been exposed to a coworker(s) that have tested positive for COVID-19. They are not being recommended to self quarantine; and allowed to continue to work and potentially spread the virus. One known exposure incident; the employee was permitted to continue to work and then began to experience symptoms 2 days later.




Synopsis: Ground personnel reported that persons exposed to COVID-19 were allowed to continue to work.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
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
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A student that I signed off to solo ran off the runway during pattern work; took out a PAPI light and had a prop strike. The weather conditions were fantastic with calm winds and unlimited visibility. The student had completed 7 previous touch and go's with no issues but on the 8th lost directional control after touchdown and ran off the runway. The student in question had 51 hours of total time and approximately 3 hours of solo time before the occurrence. The lack of ADM (Aeronautical Decision Making) and physical motor skills to keep the plane on the runway led him to have an excursion. Corrective action is to make sure that he is not challenged with directional control and talk about decision making if something just doesn't seem right.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a student performing solo pattern work had a runway excursion on landing.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were once again taken off of the arrival and given vectors and altitudes for a Visual Approach to Runway 16 Left. A few weeks ago I had to submit a different report because Approach Control forgot about us and we went right through final. That was a seriously dangerous position to be in. Our company airport pages tell us to be cognizant of the fact that many RA's occur in and around the Denver area. Every time I come into Denver I brief my First Officer how we should be aware of how Approach Control forgets about us. Or approach brings in aircraft so close to us that conflicts occur. So on today's flight we intercept final 20 or 25 miles out for a straight in to Runway 16L. However I'm watching the TCAS and see an aircraft coming from behind us high and fast. Watching; Watching the aircraft high to our right. It was descending rapidly. Much faster than us with a huge closure rate. He was; I guess cleared to 10;000 feet GOING WELL ABOVE 250 knots for the parallel Runway 16 Right. We were at 210 knots level 9;000 feet as assigned. Straight in final; stable. The target went from White to Amber to RED so fast that we barely had time to disconnect the auto pilot and follow the instructions Of TCAS. As fast as the warning came it went away just as fast. STILL SCARY. I informed Approach Control of receiving the warning. A go-around was not necessary in this instance however the aircraft to our right certainly got our attention. It rapidly sped by us and landed well ahead of us. I have been going into Denver rather regularly for the last month or two and I would say they can do better. The aircraft next to us was in a massive hurry. To the best of my knowledge it was a [another carrier name]. Don't allow aircraft to get so close to each other. Instead; stagger them. Also; allowing aircraft to scream onto final puts others at risk. High altitude; high true airspeed; bigger turn radius makes overshoots common. That's what happened here. Once we get an RA; its game over. The autopilot gotta go off and we follow the commands; period.




Synopsis: A pilot reported receiving and reacting to a TCAS/RA for an aircraft that overtook them being sequenced to the parallel runway.