elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON 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)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At flap retraction following takeoff - we received a flap system 1 fault. We checked the QRH then followed ECAM. We also noticed that IGNITION remained on the upper ECAM. Additionally; we had an ENG 1 approach idle only on the status page. We contacted Maintenance to verify that it is ok to fly for over 5 hours with the igniter's ON and the Eng Mode selector in NORM. Maintenance directed us to - in compliance with QRH - reset the FWC computers with no luck. Maintenance had us check the Engine page to see if IGN was on. We advised Maintenance that IGN was not displayed on engine page; but it also did not display when we selected eng mode on or selected the engine anti ice on. We were under the impression that IGN came on the ENG page only during start. Maintenance then informed us that the IGNITION on the upper ECAM was just a message and didn't mean the ignition was actually on. Further; Maintenance advised us that they believe that our ignition system was inhibited and would not turn on with engine anti ice nor when selected with mode selector. On the other hand; if we were right Maintenance advised that worse case scenario was that the igniter's would burn out. Dispatch gave us the option of continuing to destination or diverting. We elected to go to divert. Maybe the flap system 1 fault interrupted a signal to the igniter's to shut off after takeoff?




Synopsis: A321 Captain experiences a flap system 1 fault after flap retraction and noticed that IGNITION remained on the upper ECAM. Maintenance Control is contacted for their input and the crew elects to divert for repairs.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Haze / Smoke; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Glider operations were in progress on arrival to pick up aircrew member. I had gone around twice to accommodate the gliders after breaking out into visual conditions at just above minimums. Conditions enroute to search area were IMC. The glider coordinator was told by the crew member being picked up that we would be leaving on an Instrument flight plan with a clearance void time and they should wait to take off and launch. However; they departed anyway as I was getting my clearance. I took off and passed well behind and below them. There was never a conflict at any time. However; they were upset since when I stated I saw them I gave an abbreviated report that I saw them above me and I was passing below. Evidently they became irate and attacked the crew member on return. They no doubt also caused everyone else on the airfield to become upset.In order to have avoided the verbal conflict following the flight I should have either not reported traffic or I should have given a more precise report. On the other hand; the glider operations were being performed by people who were reportedly not willing to accept that powered craft can also use the same airfield as they are. They would have prevented a problem if they had an experienced crew chief on hand and if they had waited less than five minutes to take off.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reportedly upset a tow plane pilot with glider behind by taking off behind them and passing within 1000 feet vertically and 3000 feet laterally.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were loading and the current weather began to change.  We were already using fluid numbers for performance due to deicing requirements but then it began to snow.  My First Officer gave me new numbers for performance due to icing conditions.  Here is where simple gets curiously strange.  Who to contact?  I called [the load planner] to advise them of the new Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) due to performance.  I was advised they had the most accurate info from dispatch and they could make no adjustments to MTOW.  I desperately tried to advise them of our intent and it became quite clear there is no plan or training for [the load planner] to adjust MTOW due to real time weather the pilots are trying to make.  Flight plan shows MTOW of 64408 and our new MTOW was 61100.  Our actual TOW was 56340.  We had inclement weather; delays and flow to destination.  In an effort to keep the wheels turning I chose to continue since there is no weight violation and try to help fix the problem today.   The real problem here is we have been completely removed from this process and we need to all work together to run safely.  Currently leaving with an inaccurate MTOW on the final paperwork seems not wrong; misleading; but a trap putting a flight in potential risk.As best I can tell this scenario is just not covered in our new program.  There is no training for it and it seems our [load planning] agents don't actually know what we are doing when the weather is not clear when it comes to performance.1) All parties need a real understanding of our role in this scenario.  What we are really trying to do. There is zero guidance.2) Pilots should have direct contact with [the load planner] to adjust MTOW if need by performance.3) Dispatch does not need to be contacted unless the new number is to restrictive and we need other options to maintain payload.There seems to be others issues that are slowly working themselves out but this seems to be a legal trap to not only the company but the flight crews legally and the safety of flight.  This issue will occur as long as we have performance issues like icing and heavy loads; we did it on three flights in one day.I would like to help any way possible to get this resolved TODAY; it cannot wait till tomorrow.




Synopsis: A flight crew had difficulty having load planning change maximum take off weight to reflect real time weather conditions.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Being vectored for the visual into MIA; Tower gave a traffic advisory for a 737 ahead of us. We advised 'In sight.' Tower then told us to follow that traffic; cleared for the visual to Runway 26R. In a separate radio call; Tower asked if we could keep our speed up because we would be the last aircraft in before switching direction of the runways. Winds on the ATIS were reported 240 at 4. We said we would maintain speed. ATC also directed the 737 to maintain same speed to the final.The 737 was sidestepped to 26L; and we were on final for 26R; so to his right. We also stayed; in keeping with aeronautical training; above his glide path. However; due to whatever exact wind and atmospheric conditions prevailed at the time; we did nonetheless encounter the wake turbulence of the 737; and the aircraft attitude changed drastically in what [the] Captain and I agreed was severe turbulence. Objects did fly about in the cabin; and we entered a steep descent and a turn. I do not believe that the aircraft was ever actually out of control. Prior to the time of the encounter with severe turbulence; I was already flying by hand; so I did not need to override automation or take over for it upon disconnection. I leveled the wings and arrested the descent. The total time of the event I estimate to have been 1-2 seconds. After that; the approach and landing were normal. We put down the gear and 30 degrees flaps and had a normal descent and soft touchdown.Everything they tell you about wake turbulence is true. Though we were higher than the 737 and to its right; there was at that altitude a very slight tailwind; and that combined with the heat (perhaps causing rising columns of air from the ground) may have pushed the wake into our path. Contributing factors included my trying to keep the speed of the approach higher than I normally would; in keeping with ATC's request; and atmospheric conditions. Suggested amelioration: Keep farther back from the preceding aircraft; and even higher. Perhaps not try to be quite so helpful on the speed request: I'm sure they would still have waited for us to land.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence from a B737 on approach to a parallel runway at MIA.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the first crew member to board the aircraft. I stowed my items; did my safety checks; walked to the rear of the aircraft; all okay. Shortly after the crew boarded; the two aft FAs (Flight Attendants) came forward. FA XX asked if we smelt anything. Simultaneously; I came out of the forward galley; I had already smelt the overwhelming smell of oil/diesel fumes.Three FAs deplaned immediately. I stumbled out the door. The smell of oil fumes triggered an asthma attack for me.My two flying partners felt sick. With the wheezing; shortness of breath; chest tightness; dizziness; nausea feeling; I sat on the jet bridge. My crew gave me an oxygen bottle from the aircraft; paramedics came to assist. Captain instructed the ground PC (Precondition) air to be shut off; and turn on the APU. A Ramp worker determined that the fumes seeped into the PC air from nearby construction. I was still sitting on the jet bridge with medics and staff when the passengers started to board. Captain XX postponed the boarding until I had officially deplaned.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported strong oil/diesel fumes during preflight; which resulted in physiological symptoms among the cabin crew.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: scattered clouds; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While accomplishing a VFR climb through 4;400 ft. msl and establishing VFR flight following and radar contact with ZZZ departure control; a faint electrical burning smell in the cockpit and a small amount of momentary smoke coming from lower left side (pilot side) instrument panel near the aircraft circuit breakers was observed. This event occurred after departing ZZZ1. The smell and the puff of smoke was noted approximately 18nm Southwest of ZZZ2 while enroute to ZZZ3 airport. The cockpit did not fill with smoke nor were any flames ever observed. However; the aircraft instrumentation indicated a loss of electrical current from the aircraft's alternator. In an abundance of caution and to ascertain the source of the smoke; I immediately turned off the master switch and all electrical equipment and began a VFR decent for the closest airport; ZZZ4 some 12nm to the Northwest. During this decent; there was no additional smoke noted. Furthermore; the amount of smoke was never such as to limit visibility or breathing and did not require a window or door to be opened. A normal landing gear extension was accomplished and a landing was made without incident. After landing; the undersigned contacted the FAA control tower in ZZZ to advise why communication was abruptly terminated. I also contacted a local A&P mechanic to investigate the cause of this issue. This investigation and the repairs to the electrical system required to return the aircraft to service are pending. However; preliminary information indicates the cause of the electrical issue was a failure of the alternator; resulting in a burned ground wire on the back of the alternator and the source of the smoke in the cockpit was related to the 60amp circuit breaker which was destroyed in the event. There were no injuries. This statement is true and correct.




Synopsis: Pilot reported alternator failure; resulting in a diversion and a precautionary landing.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NUW.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: TRACON NUW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: En route to FHR approximately 30 NM south of the airport; escaped a near mid-air collision with a plane coming from behind/overtaking us. We received a traffic report from Whidbey Approach of traffic 300 feet above at our 6 o'clock a few miles behind. Next transmission was 'traffic descending to same altitude gaining speed'. We diverted 10 degrees left of course for traffic avoidance; however they also followed our left course. Whidbey transmission 'traffic right behind you/on you 6 to 5 o'clock'. I spotted them nearly hitting our wing and diverted into a steep 50 degree turn left to avoid the collision'. Upon later confronting the other pilot; he said 'he didn't move even though he saw us because he was making position reports on the UNICOM'.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor was advised by ATC of traffic closing from behind and took evasive action to avoid a near mid air collision.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After landing on XXR; the rollout was extended to pass an aircraft that landed in front of us taxiing on A. We exited E and contacted Ground. I have been told we were given E; B; K; which I read back and our stand; which we could not understand the stand number. We exited at E and I was trying to get a confirmation of the stand as the taxi would be rather complicated due to the new terminal XX and all the construction at terminal XX. We turned to follow the aircraft on A; thinking it was B where Ground wanted us; and the 3 or 4 other aircraft on A taxiing to the terminals. I was still trying to confirm our stand number. Taxiing on the other taxiway did not make logical sense as all other aircraft were on what we must have assumed was B. Nothing was said at the time by the Ground Controller about being on A instead of B as we were in line with all the other aircraft which landed before us. We were the last aircraft on A and there were no conflicts with any other aircraft and we followed all further instructions to the stand XXX or XXY without event.As FO my last line operational flight was in March. I have not been to ZZZZ for several years. I also found it very difficult to change between 3 taxi charts to try to find the taxiways being assigned; confirm all the construction and the stand number. The Jeppesen aircraft symbol of course was not working on my 10-9.Consolidate all important taxi information on one Jeppesen page; especially with the considerable construction and closed taxiways.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing a taxiway incursion after receiving complex taxi instructions. The FO cited as contributing factors a lack of recent flight experience and having not been to the airport in several years.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I contacted Ramp Control and was given a clearance to taxi to my parking spot via 'Spot XX to park.' There is a service road that crosses the taxiway into the cargo area. A service vehicle was on the service road approaching from my right and did not yield to me taxiing in. He blew right through the intersection nearly causing a collision. Evasive action was taken by myself and the driver of the vehicle to avoid a collision. Vehicle swerved to avoid hitting me but did not change direction and continued across my path narrowly missing the left side of the aircraft.Driver of service vehicle not paying attention. Failure to obey traffic signs and failure to yield to moving aircraft.I applied full braking and full reverse to avoid a collision. Driver of vehicle swerved to avoid a collision but did not stop and continued across my path narrowly missing the left side of the aircraft. I contacted ramp control and reported a near miss with a service vehicle and that evasive action was taken to avoid a collision.I would like to see Airport Operation/Airport Police stationed at the cargo entrance and observe vehicle traffic during peak cargo operation hours. Driver needs retrained in vehicle operations in the airport environment.




Synopsis: Cessna pilot reported having to take evasive actions while taxiing to avoid a vehicle.