elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Landing; Taxi; Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the descent into ZZZ1 on Aircraft X from ZZZZ - ZZZ1 we experienced a strong dirty socks odor that persisted all the way to the gate. The First Officer complained of an irritated throat. I was the Captain for flight XXX and did not experience any side effects. A log book write up was made as well as a fumes event report included in logbook. Previous flight into ZZZZ also experienced an odor event with a deferral of the APU bleed by maintenance in ZZZZ for our flight.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fume event of 'dirty socks' during descent that lasted until gate arrival.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ; the ATIS was obtained with reported winds of 340 @ 15 G 28. The airport was configured to land east; utilizing Runways XL and XXC. The First Officer (FO) and I discussed how this was odd and not desirable as the tailwind component with gusts was at our 10 knot limitation. Additionally; the ATIS stated there were wind shear advisories in the area. On final approach inside the FAF; maintaining target airspeed within Vref +10 was extremely difficult due to the high wind gusts; shifting winds; and shear. As pilot flying; my airspeed was hovering at +10 with occasional jumps up to +20. The wind vector on the MFD was showing winds at 030 between 20-35 knots until 100 feet or so; where the winds sheared to 340 at an unknown speed. I touched down within the touchdown zone but off centerline by approximately 10 feet. Taxi to the hanger was uneventful and no damage was noted. During the debrief; the FO and I agreed a go-around with a request to land on a Westerly direction should have been made. The cause of this event were gusty winds; poor traffic flow decision by ATC; and undesirable speed control by the Pilot Flying due to windshear.  ATC decision to land to the east with reported winds of 340 @ 15 G 28. This decision by ATC caused an unsafe tailwind condition when coupled with very strong and gusty crosswinds. Additionally; myself or the FO should have requested a landing to the west. However; the First Officer and I determined that any request would be denied as ZZZ has a reputation for not accommodating these types of request in order to maintain efficient traffic flows. There is pressure to land with the prevailing flow of traffic at a major airport like ZZZ when the crew sees other aircraft landing in the existing conditions; even if the crew would prefer an alternate runway. I strongly believe ATC created an unsafe situation that may have inadvertently pressured pilots into landing with a tailwind in gusty conditions. When I made the decision to conduct the approach; a go around would have been the correct action when the wind sheared at 100 feet.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain flying CRJ-200 aircraft reports unsafe tailwind condition during approach to landing.
Date: 201712
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Regular FO (First Officer) was able to get vacation drop and trip was assigned to a reserve pilot. During flight planning FO said it was good I was an LCA (Line Check Airman) since he had questions. He also told me I would need to watch him like a hawk. During set up the FO asked very basic questions and when I reviewed the FMC I found numerous errors. No position loaded alignment didn't complete; no tail number with data reset; unable to remember how to pull up intersection data and get it to load. When I asked him how long it had been since he sat in the right seat for takeoff replied around 8 months since he had attended 2 landings classes within the last a few months prior. This pilot was not prepared. He had lost confidence; when I asked if he really didn't know some of his questions his reply was I think they are right I just want to double check. I found myself falling into OE (Operating Experience) mode and spent the rest of the flight as if it were an OE. With a strongly worded debrief that if this had been a line check he would not have [passed]. By the second leg; which he flew; he was at end level proficiency. This pilot told me he bids reserve for more time off. This report is not to rat him out; but to point out the problem our current system of scheduling has on maintaining proficiency. He told me he had studied but admitted he was not prepared. Anytime a pilot tells you 'To keep an eye on him 'should raise warning flags. I would also like to point out if a pilot missed work for an 8 month period; he would require [recurrent training] for 2 legs.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported that the reserve First Officer had not flown in 8 months and was not proficient in the aircraft.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On arrival to LAS via the GRNPA ONE STAR we were told to expect the visual approach to Runway 19R. We had already selected the RNAV 19R from the FMC database; and briefed the approach from paper charts in the ship sets. As a side note; selecting the RNAV approach was done because the RNAV GPS approaches to 19R and 19L infringe on Nellis airspace per previous operations bulletin. Upon transfer to the second Approach Control frequency; we were cleared to fly from TRROP to LEMNZ; to cross LEMNZ at or above 3;500 FT and cleared for the visual approach to [Runway] 19R. I questioned the Controller asking for the RNAV 19R; an approach previous aircraft were being cleared for. He advised we; my air carrier; were not authorized for it. Subsequently we accepted the previously issued clearance and began our approach. LEMNZ is 2.6 NM from Runway 19R. By crossing it at 3;500 FT; you are 1;400 FT AGL. We immediately recognized this threat and through appropriate energy management were able to complete the approach. This clearance is dangerous; and will set up crews every time for an unstable approach.




Synopsis: An air carrier crew on approach to LAS Runway 19R was cleared to cross LEMNZ Intersection at or above 3;500 FT but consider 1;400 FT AGL at 2.6 NM from the airport an unstabilized approach setup.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the day of the incident it was LIFR [Low Instrument Flight Rules] conditions. Aircraft X had just departed RWY XX from ZZZ; and had called me for his check on at about 023 ft. I told him 'Radar contact; climb and maintain 040'. I then went on with my scan of my sector; and when I came back to Aircraft X; I noticed his altitude was 015 [feet]; the pilot had descended on his own; I then asked if everything was ok and if he needed any assistance. The pilot informed me that he was having control issues and was having a hard time keeping his plane in level flight. I told him ZZZ was 4 or 5 miles south of him if he wanted to return; I then informed the Supervisor of what was going on and coordinated with ZZZ about the situation. The pilot asked me what highway he was flying over; I informed him and ZZZ was 3 miles S/SW of him. The pilot then informed me he lost all his instruments. I then continued to inform him of his position in relation to ZZZ. I also coordinated with ZZZ to issue the pilot a landing clearance if/when he got ZZZ in sight. Thankfully; the pilot was able to finally see ZZZ about 1.5 miles from the field; I issued a landing clearance and switched the pilot over to ZZZ Tower and the pilot did land safely. While I did not issue the 'low altitude alert'; which was the reason this incident was brought up again for [report] purposes; I was so engrossed in trying to get the plane and pilot back to the ground safely I should have issued the 'low altitude alert'.




Synopsis: D10 Controller reported a twin Cessna pilot descended below clearance in low IFR weather.
Date: 201502
Location: PRC.Airport, AZ
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PRC
ATC / advisory: Tower PRC
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a routine pre-solo traffic pattern flight we had a near mid-air with a Bell Jet Ranger helicopter.  The runway in use at Prescott was Runway 30 with the winds out of the north with gusts to 22kt; and visibility greater than 10SM.  We had been cleared for a touch and go on 30 from the left downwind.  Sometime before turning base tower gave right traffic entry instructions for a helicopter that was approaching the airport from the east (I do not recall the exact instructions that were giving to the helicopter).  Soon after we turned on an approximately 2.5NM final I heard the helicopter report right base.  The helicopter did not give a distance out; and tower told him to turn back to the right downwind.  This caught my attention and I begin to scan for traffic off the right wing tip; and behind the wing.  This was where I determined that helicopter would be according to their radio calls.  I checked the MFD for any ADS-B traffic; but due to a radar outage any non-ADS-B equipped aircraft would not show on the MFD.  The student continued to fly down final. When we were on an approximately 1.5NM final I turned my attention back to our final approach course; as I was unable to locate the helicopter off my right side.  I located the helicopter shortly after looking back at final.  We were still about 1.5NM out and approximately 500 feet AGL.  The helicopter was at our one o'clock and headed straight for us (approximately 150 feet lateral and -100 feet vertical).  I took evasive action by pulling hard on the elevator and banking to the left to avoid sudden impact with the helicopter.  My best guess is we were 3 seconds from impact.  I continued to climb to TPA on runway heading.  My student never saw the helicopter.The helicopter pilot then reported to tower that he had a near mid air; I responded that he had just crossed the final approach course.  Tower then had him turn back to the right downwind for 30.Other contributing factors were that Prescott tower's radar feed was also out of service; which left the tower without a valuable aid in sequencing aircraft arrivals.  This coupled with the fact the helicopter was a transient aircraft that may have not been adequately familiar with the area.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter at PRC during a time the Tower's radar was out of service.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Compressor Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to work an MEL on an A320 aircraft and I was supposed to change the High Pressure (HP) 10th stage bleed valve closure solenoid (4029ks). Instead I changed the HP 10th stage solenoid (4023ks); not realizing I changed the wrong solenoid because the terminology confused me. See Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) figures [drawings] in Chapters 75-23-53 and Troubleshooting Manual (TSM) 36-11-00. I was working at night; outside on Pad-5 on my third night. At the same time; I was assisting a Mechanic working a 2.5 bleed actuator on the opposite motor and may have been distracted. I had changed the wrong part and re-deferred the MEL. Two nights later; another Mechanic was assigned the same job to fix the MEL; but could not locate the part in stock that I had installed incorrectly. After researching; that Mechanic found the part installed in the incorrect position. Distraction and confusion between AMM figures in 75-32-53 and TSM 36-11-00; the MEL was cleared during the second visit.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports he mistakenly changed the High Pressure 10th stage solenoid (4013ks) instead of the High Pressure (HP) 10th stage bleed valve closure solenoid (4029ks) on an A320 aircraft engine. Distraction with helping another Mechanic and confusion with the drawings in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) and Troubleshooting Manual (TSM) were noted as contributors.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was dispatched to a fire with two BLM (Bureau of Land Management) personnel onboard on an Air Attack mission for firefighting. We did not have coordinates for the fire until airborne and therefore did not have time to properly check the sectional for airspace before I left; which was my mistake. I got airborne and received the fire coordinates from State Forestry and input them into my GPS and started heading to it. I knew I was close to Class C airspace so I contacted approach and they gave me a squawk code. Shortly after they told me to climb from 4500 to 5500 for traffic; which I did immediately. We had also seen traffic ahead on our onboard TCAS display; which was not an immediate threat. We later saw the traffic (UAS) pass below us. We proceeded to the fire and when Approach gave me the clearance for frequency change out of their airspace they told me to call a number for a possible Restricted Area intrusion. I still had no idea what they were talking about until I later reviewed the sectional closer. I then called them from the Satellite phone and later from my cell phone to talk with TRACON and discuss my mistake. They said I just barely clipped the Restricted Area by the Air Force Base; which was active at the time and the traffic I climbed to avoid was a drone.I realize my mistake was not reviewing airspace properly before being dispatched for a fire; but also believe the nature of fire dispatches along with my unfamiliarity with the area caused this to happen. From now on I demand to know the fire coordinates before getting airborne so I can review the airspace.




Synopsis: Light twin pilot reports being dispatched on an air attack mission for the Forest Service without precise coordinates or a proper preflight of the route. The route passes through restricted airspace and results in a conflict with a military drone.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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 Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There were multiple aircraft situations that preceded this loss of separation. A light aircraft at 14000 feet west bound. Multiple Burbank arrivals and a BFL departure; destination LAX at 13000 feet. The arrival at 14000 feet was in the middle of the sector adding complexity. I meant to stop another landing aircraft above 15000 feet; but apparently issued 14000 feet instead. When that aircraft didn't stop descent I vectored it to the west to avoid the other aircraft at 14000 feet who I also turned to avoid that situation. Meanwhile; Aircraft X was under both aircraft at 13000 feet and not sequenced with Aircraft Y and another aircraft. Both were from high altitude descending via a STAR. I vectored the BFL departure to the east to follow Aircraft Y; then turned it back; too soon; and lost separation with Aircraft Y. In post incident review the best solution would have been to hand the BFL to LAX aircraft off to adjacent sector for routing via their LAX stream and eliminate that aircraft from the scenario. It also would have helped if I had called the sector to the east for control to descend the SBA arrival aircraft. I find that the descend via procedures that we implemented have added complexity to the sectors. There are numerous new fixes along the routes and more of them. One factor that slowed me down was in the above situation was having to look up a fix for the arrival to rejoin the STAR after I vectored it off route. The User Request Evaluation Tool (URET) didn't display it when I looked. Additionally; the aircraft are now descending into the sectors from high altitude versus before when they only entered after a clearance.




Synopsis: A Center controller reported the vector for sequencing was insufficient and resulted in less than required separation.