elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after leveling off at FL350 for our planned cruise altitude; we heard the Cabin Altitude Warning horn without any other warning light indications. Both pilots immediately donned our oxygen masks and established communications with each other. We noticed the Cabin Pressure gauge read 10;000 FT; the cabin rate indicator was climbing; both packs were in auto and both engine bleeds were on; and the Outflow Valve gauge was reading full closed. With the cabin altitude at 10;000 FT and climbing; the Captain (pilot not flying) declared an emergency with ATC and asked for a descent. ATC initially gave us FL330 then shortly after the First Officer (pilot flying) started the emergency descent; they gave us FL240 then down to 10;000 FT. The First Officer (pilot flying) continued the emergency descent on autopilot while the Captain (pilot not flying) read through the Cabin Altitude Warning/Abnormal Pressurization Checklist and Emergency Descent Checklist. After reading the checklist; the Captain (pilot not flying) informed the flight attendants to take their seats; and advised them of our pressurization problem; emergency descent; and the possibility of the masks deploying. During our emergency descent; we went to manual/AC on the pressure controller to ensure the outflow value was full closed. This had no effect at controlling the cabin pressure. Passing between FL200 to FL180; the cabin altitude reached 14;000 FT and the oxygen light on the overhead panel illuminated. We confirmed with the flight attendants that the masks dropped and everyone was on oxygen. The cabin altitude reached 15;000 FT and then descended with the aircraft altitude until it stabilized at 10;000 FT. A diversion was considered; but fuel; weather; and no medical requirements allowed us to agree with Dispatch for a continued flight to destination.


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


Synopsis: B737-300 flight crew experiences a cabin altitude warning horn shortly after leveling off at FL350. An emergency is declared; oxygen masks are donned; and the flight descends to 10;000 FT. During the descent the cabin altitude exceeds 14;000 FT and the passenger oxygen masks drop. The crew is able to continue to destination at 10;000 FT.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SFB
ATC / advisory: Tower SFB
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Sky Hawk called me on Ground Control requesting VFR ILS Approach into SFB. I asked the pilot if he would like an ILS to 9L or 9R. The pilot advised that he could accept 9R since he wanted closed traffic after the approach. I put in the scratch pad entry J I Z which stands for 9R; ILS; Closed Traffic. I put on the strip a 110 heading which is given to our South departures considering that this aircraft is going to be vectored to our South ILS. I was also taxiing the heavy B767 to Runway 9L. I took the Sky Hawk to 9C in order to get them out in front of the Heavy and avoid wake turbulence. Local Controller was able to depart the Sky Hawk on his 110 heading and established RADAR confirmation and flying the 110 heading which is required by the LOA. He transferred control of the aircraft to Orlando Approach North Sector. After switching the Sky Hawk; Orlando Approach North Sector accepts the release for the Heavy B767 off Runway 9L. Local Control cleared the heavy for take off on a 080 heading. When the heavy tagged up on our RADAR we notice that the Approach Controller turned the Sky Hawk northbound into the flight path of the Heavy B767. The Local Controller at this point had already transferred radio communications. The Approach Controller turned both planes; the heavy to a north and the Sky Hawk to the east to provide separation. There are many flaws in the LOA between our facility and F11. It says that if a plane is going to have an approach into 9L that it should be given a 050 heading. It also states that if the aircraft flight is south of SFB it should have a 110 heading. This creates much confusion as to which heading these aircraft are to be given. I would recommend that our LOA identify which heading Approach would like these aircraft on.




Synopsis: A SFB Controller is concerned the ambiguity of the LOA requirements between their facility and MCO TRACON contributed to a conflict when MCO turned a VFR aircraft into the path of an IFR departure.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While beginning my descent for landing at CXP about CHIME intersection my passenger said 'What is that?' I saw a drone pass directly off my left wing at less than 50 feet away. I was descending through 8;000' MSL. The operator of the drone is unknown and what it was doing at that altitude is also unknown; but it was where it should not be. This very dangerous situation [that] could have caused a total aircraft loss and or loss of life. I continued the flight without incident. I could not see this drone until I was so close that any evasive action would have been futile.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported an NMAC with a UAV at 8000' in the vicinity of CXP airport.
Date: 201411
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am deeply concerned by the new procedures in place at ATL that allow for immediate takeoff behind a B757. Tower controllers are pressuring crews to takeoff immediately behind B757s in all visual conditions; including the most hazardous - light quartering tailwinds. A few weeks back; I heard a controller admonish a crew that balked at the immediate clearance with a 'that's our new procedure' when they expressed concern about the wisdom of the departure. Recently; we were cleared to go behind a 767 (not 757) without a 'caution wake turbulence' warning; or with adequate separation. We refused the clearance. Would this have happened if the 757 was still properly classified? I don't think so - controllers are human; and a 767 looks like a 757 from a distance. On multiple occasions; we have had wake encounters with 757s on departure following this new procedure - minor deviations; but deviations nonetheless.I wonder what about ATL makes it immune from the physics that govern wake turbulence behavior everywhere else on the planet earth. Cynically; I am thinking that someone in Washington needed to show an increase in runway capacity; and putting crews and passengers in harm's way by ignoring wake turbulence was an easy way to do it.If we were limiting this idiocy to periods of moderate crosswind; I would be less concerned; but it is not. Furthermore; field conditions are often markedly different from those at a few hundred feet. It is not uncommon to takeoff in calm winds and immediately enter into a quartering tailwind.....and right into a lingering and powerful vortex.I urge the FAA to abandon this unsafe practice before it hurts someone.




Synopsis: B717 First Officer expressed concern that the new in-trail procedures in place in ATL could lead to unsafe wake vortex encounters for departing aircraft.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: De-iced with the 1 & typ 4 fluid. Taxi out to XXR (full length). TO (Takeoff) delay approximately 20 minutes due to ATC and passenger traffic. Initially; normal takeoff. At 'positive rate/gear up' call; landing gear handle would only retract 1/2 way to the 'off' detent. Leveled off at 5;000 feet; 230 kts. Ran ECAM L/G RETRACTION FAULT procedure. Left landing gear handle down. Ran fuel consumption procedure. Determined we would land with approximately 11;100 lbs of fuel. Arrival weather was good with -SN (Light Snow). Attempted to contact Flight Operations to share this plan. This was a problem as this frequency was shared with some other air operations center north of ZZZ1. Finally able to verbally (and via ACARS) confirm our plan with Dispatch to continue to ZZZ and land with less fuel than scheduled. Dispatch said they would inform Approach Control of our situation and coordinate priority handling due to our lower fuel state. This never happened and we informed Approach ourselves. Approach and landing were uneventful. During taxi in to ramp; we were informed by Ramp Control to hold our position on the center line until marshallers arrived. Initial (lead-in) marshaller attempted to direct us to turn into a lone tug on our right side that was driving behind the white line; but was NOT clear for the turn. The rest of the parking was uneventful.


Second narrative: Landing gear did not retract after takeoff. Leveled at 5000 feet and ran appropriate checklists. Gear selector was placed to down position and flight continued with gear down. Fuel consumption increase procedure determined landing at ZZZ with 11100 lbs. of fuel. Advised flight control of situation and asked for guidance on return to [departure] or continue to [destination]. Flight control concurred with continuation to [destination] and landing with less fuel than originally planned. Climbed to FL200 and advised enroute ATC of reduced speed capability. Landed uneventfully.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported the landing gear failed to retract after takeoff.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Soon after reaching cruise altitude of 37;000 FT; we received an ECAM: HYD B SYS LO PR. We complied with the ECAM and turned off the Blue Electric Hydraulic Pump. At this point; we ran the checklist per SOP for a Non-normal Laning and completed the landing distance procedure. We called Dispatch and Maintenance for a conference. While talking with Maintenance; we received a HYD B RSVR LO LVL. The only difference from the previous ECAM was not to turn the Blue Electric Pump on during approach. Otherwise; all protocol remained the same. Maintenance entered the failure into the maintenance history and informed arrival station Maintenance. We discussed the issue with the flight attendants. We declared an emergency with ATC and asked for 34L and direct our destination VOR. Once we checked on with ATC; they assured us that airport authorities had been notified and emergency equipment was ready. We continued and landed on 16R without further incident.


Second narrative: [No additional information from Narrative #2]


Synopsis: An A320 ECAM alerted HYD B SYS LO PR followed shortly thereafter by HYD B RSVR LO LVL so an emergency was declared; the QRH completed and an uneventful landing followed at the destination airport.
Date: 201404
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: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Before takeoff [on my return flight from a short cross country] I did a full preflight; checking fuel and for water in both the tanks and gascolator.  When I reached the north side of a [frequent VFR Reporting Point] I called Tower and started my descent to traffic pattern altitude.  The engine began to run rough so I applied carb heat with no change.  I switched the fuel tank selector from both to right and after no change; returned to both.  I advised Tower I had to land the airplane; picked a nice grass field and landed safely.  Upon landing; I checked the gascolator and tanks.  I found water in both.  I secured the plane; consulted an A & P; purged the fuel system of water and ran the engine to verify the aircraft was airworthy.  I then measured and prepared the field to ensure a safe takeoff and flew the plane back to base without incident.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C172 returning to base suffered a rough running engine which forced a safely conducted off airport landing.  When he sumped the tanks and gascolator he discovered water in both.  After appropriate ameliorative; testing and planning measures the flight back to base was conducted without further incident.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 300
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After our arrival at ZZZ1 we were scheduled for 3-hours of standby duty at the FBO.  During that time someone; presumably the line crew; installed gear pins with narrow white ID-style neck lanyards used as flags in all 3 landing gear.  The flag (lanyard) on the nose-gear pin was especially problematic because it was only about an inch or 2 longer than the gear door and the white color made it extremely difficult to see.  The lightweight construction of the lanyards could also make them susceptible to being blown up into the gear wells rendering them invisible to the flight crew.Line service must notify the flight crew when they're installing gear pins and the flags used must be replaced with standard large red 'Remove Before Flight' flags so that they are more visible to the crew should they not be notified that the pins are installed.




Synopsis: An EMB-505 Captain reported that the line crew at the FBO he was parked at used gear pins that were non-standard and difficult to spot on a walk-around.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X was wearing a face shield without a mask. I noticed during boarding process. I informed him policy is to wear a face mask over his nose and mouth as well. He said for me to stop talking to him and go away.  He said he had a condition. He repeated; that he wanted me to go away and stop talking to [him]. I asked him if he had talked to an agent? He said there was no one to talk to at the gate. I offered for him to talk to a gate agent. He again said for me to go away and did not want to talk to me. He appeared to be pulling a mask out of his bag; as I was offering to go get one for him. The FA C came and [offered] some masks. He told her to go away. Next time I was in the aisle about 10 minutes later; he had the mask on but below his nose and mouth. I asked him to make sure he had his mask pulled up; he was hostile and said he was not going to speak to me. Told me to 'Go away; I'm not talking to you.' I informed the A FA; she informed the CA. They decided to remove the passenger. An employee flying in Row XX witnessed the exchange. He was not in compliance and a safety hazard to other passengers and crew for COVID-19.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was removed from the flight due to non-compliance with face mask policy.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight was a charter flight. The flight taxied and took off twenty minutes later. Final weights were sent nearly an hour before taxi with a Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) of 525;586 LBS. One hour 17 minutes after takeoff; our Dispatcher sent us an ACARS message informing us 'YOUR FINAL WEIGHTS WERE WRONG. ACTUAL ZFW IS 534;726. I SENT A NEW REVAL DOC TO THE PRINTER. SABRE CRASHED WHEN I SENT IT. DID IT ARRIVE? I PLAN ON FILING A REPORT OVER THIS. THANKS.' We the crew started doing our calculations with the new ZFW (that was 9140 LBS over the final ZFW message of 526586) and added it to our boarded fuel 344;100 LBS and concluded that we taxied out at 878;826 LBS (max weight is 878;000 LBS) without knowing it. The liftoff fuel from the ACARS HOWGOESIT message was 342;100 LBS and we concluded (after we were notified of the error) that we lifted off at 876;686 LBS (max takeoff is 875;000 LBS) without our knowledge. We assumed we weighted 867;686 LBS using the original final weight. Our V-speeds were calculated based on that weight. The aircraft takeoff roll and rotation was uneventful but felt heavy. From push back; during taxi and until takeoff our cockpit was not contacted thru ACARS; SATCOM; or TOWER or any other means to inform us of the error. Inflight we called the duty manager thru SATCOM to inform him of our findings.


Second narrative: We took off at XA:54z. Our lifted fuel was 344100 lbs. Our reported final weights were: ZFW 525.586; TOW 866.986. We received an ACARS message at XC:05Z from Dispatch that our final weights were wrong. The actual ZFW was 534.726 vs 525.586 a difference of 9140 lbs. Without our knowledge; we were over weight for taxi at 878.826 LBS and our takeoff weight was 876.900. The Dispatcher comments were that at the time of the error discovery way before our take off time; SABRE had to fix something in the background.


Synopsis: B747 flight crew and Load Planner reported the Dispatch software system crashed which prevented the final weight and balance numbers to be delivered prior to takeoff. During cruise; the flight crew was notified their max taxi weight was exceeded and max takeoff weight of 875;000 LBS was exceeded at 876;686 LBS.