elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff at MIA; and had just advanced the throttles to T/O thrust when a white; unmarked MD-80 taxied across our departure runway from left to right about 800 feet down the runway from us. I retarded the throttles to idle; disconnected the autothrottle; and applied brakes. We had barely moved at all. We then waited for the intruding aircraft to clear the runway; confirmed our take off clearance with the Tower; and took off uneventfully. Simply: had we not noticed the intruding aircraft immediately; this event could have had a tragic ending.




Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew cleared for takeoff at MIA airport noted an aircraft crossing the departure runway down field and rejected the takeoff.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During offload a ground air cart blew a radiator hose into the intake and contaminated the packs. Maintenance tried clearing it and thought they had it clear. When ready to leave we started one in the chocks and cross bleed number 1. After both were started; we reconfigured the bleeds and packs and started to taxi. Once power was added we got an aft smoke then mid smoke then forward smoke warning. The odor was of the antifreeze that contaminated earlier.  Shut off all air and the warnings went away. Coordinated with ground and taxied in to the chocks and turned it back over to maintenance. They changed the pack filters and signed off the aircraft.The cause was [air cart] equipment malfunction.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an uneventful ground gate return due to a fume event caused by air cart radiator hose blowing into the packs.
Date: 202110
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise altitude; just prior to T/D; we received ECAM 'WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT' followed shortly after by 'BRAKES SYS 2 FAULT'; neither of which had an ECAM procedure.  I therefore asked the First Officer to reference the QRH; both of which had a QRH procedure.   There was no airborne procedure for the WHEEL N/W STRG FAULT.  We did apply the QRH procedure for BRAKES SYS 2 FAULT; but as soon as BRAKES SYS 2 FAULT cleared; we got a 'BRAKES SYS 1 FAULT' ECAM.I transferred aircraft control to the First Officer; and also delegated the radios to him.  I made voice contact with NAME via ACARS *call me request.  Dispatch got Maintenance Control and an Operations representative on the call.  I discussed the nature of the failure with all parties and after discussing continuing to ZZZ or diverting to either ZZZ1; ZZZ2; or ZZZ3; decide the safest choice considering runway length; weather; and emergency resources was a diversion to ZZZ3.Dispatch gave us fuel burn to and landing data at ZZZ3.  They also notified the station and arranged resources.I briefed the First Officer what transpired and decided to have him remain Pilot Flying.  I notified ATC of the diversion and advised ATC.The First Officer made a normal landing.  We landed uneventfully; came to a stop on center line; and the emergency vehicles approached the aircraft and have the all-clear for us to be towed off the runway to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported Brake Sys 1 and 2; plus N/W steering fault ECAM messages in flight and elected to divert and make a precautionary landing.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While performing normal safety cleaning operations for our hangar clean up sheet; I was asked to dispose used hydraulic oil into the used oil barrel. The used barrels for both fuel and oil are outside in a flammable cabinet; both labeled accordingly. The barrels sit on a drip tray that can slide in and of the cabinet. Our base has a large funnel that can hold used oil cans and filters to drain for 24 hours before being disposed. At the time the funnel was not lined with the hole to dispose the hydraulic oil properly. The cabinet has very limited space to dump anything into the barrels and is not an approved cabinet to be used outside. To line up the funnel; I had to slide the tray with both barrels on it just enough to line the funnel properly. While sliding the tray out; the tray with both barrels with both fuel and oil toppled over onto the walkway underneath the gates; which is where we keep our disposal flammable cabinet. I was unable to stop the barrels from falling because they were too heavy to stop. I was able to move quickly out of the way of the barrels falling on top of me. Both oil and fuel barrels were now on the ground spilling everywhere. I got up and quickly and tried to pick up the barrels but was unable to because of the weight of the barrels. I quickly got help to pick up the barrels from spilling any more fuel and oil. Others from our base; both management and mechanics; jumped in and helped contain the spill. We grabbed the airport's spill kit on site to contain the spill and used pig mat to absorb the spill. The spill never reached any of the aircraft or ramp vehicles. Airport ops was notified of spill and also the airport fire department. The fire department came and made sure it was not getting into any drains; which we confirmed that there were not any drains near spill. They saw that we had contained the spill and no other action from their part needed to be accomplished. We cleaned the used pig mat and oil spill kit and disposed of them into special bags to be sent out to be cleaned or be disposed of properly. Caution tape and signs were put around spill area until it was deemed passable. We cleaned area with isopropyl alcohol. An approved cabinet is needed with enough room to dispose waste fuel and oil properly without having to slide the barrels in and out of cabinet.




Synopsis: Maintenance personnel reported flammable liquid [class 3 Hazmat] spill due to inadequate storage procedures.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DC-9 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Second aircraft: B747-800 Advanced
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] following a B747-800 into Anchorage. I hand flew one dot above the glide slope. The winds were calm at the surface. I know how to avoid wake turbulence and was in VFR conditions arriving at least 4-5 miles behind the newer 800 type 747's. Around 200 FT or less; I had the DC-9 roll rapidly to the right; descend; and the aircraft offset from the centerline. I regained control and realigned and landed. I told the Tower Controller that I experienced some type of wake and she said she knows; said she saw what happened. I would have to assume that the 747 was coupled for the landing; just by the way I viewed the stable and steady state approach. My questions are: Does the 800; newer wing; have some unknown new wake characteristic where it stays longer or reacts differently than the standard wing? Did Boeing make an assumption without proofs or was it theoretical? Could the large vertical stab/rudder create a vortices that will not dissipate even after touch down; unlike the wings. Could a rudder input (during flare) cause a pressure change to develop vortices that high off the ground? We can agree that the V/S is symmetrical until an input is applied. A wing wake should have rolled me; but what about the large vertical surface?




Synopsis: A DC-9 Captain reported significant wake vortex-induced roll on approach behind a B747-800.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DLZ.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 350
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Cruise
Airspace: Class E CMH
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off and was initially going to land at ZZZ airport. [Adjacent] TRACON coordinated that the aircraft had missed a couple approaches in their airspace due to low visibility and ceilings and that fuel may be an issue. I asked the pilot if he could make ZZZ or if he would like an airport closer. At this point; he was not [requesting priority handling]; but wanted a closer airport if the weather permitted. My Supervisor gathered weather form local airports closer to the aircraft and we decided on DLZ. He put the RNAV approach in his GPS and flew the approach course. Outside of the Final Approach Fix he asked what the minimums were for the approach and I gave them to him. He then asked if I could step him down because his IPAD's battery had gone out and he didn't have a backup. I asked if he could make it to an airport which was roughly 15 miles west of his current position because there was better VFR weather being reported there. He said he was unable and [requested priority handling]. He also had reported that he could see some breaks in the clouds below him so I descended the aircraft to 2;000 feet and pointed out the airport. The MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) in the area is 2;500 feet. There is an antennae southeast of the airport that is 900 feet and wanted to wait until he was over the airport to issue a further descent in case he veered from the final approach course. He reported the field in sight about a 2 mile final and proceeded visually.If I had to do it over; I would have asked for more information earlier to make sure of the equipment he had on board. I would have then been able to possibly set him up for an Approach Surveillance Radar (ASR) approach earlier on.




Synopsis: CMH TRACON Controller reported descending an aircraft that had a fuel issue below the Minimum vectoring Altitude so they could visually acquire the nearest airport and land.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LEX.Tower, KY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C LEX
ATC / advisory: Tower LEX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While on the visual approach into LEX Runway 4; inside the final approach fix and following the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) lights with two white and two red lights indicating on glide path; we started to feel we were low according to our actual sight picture. After referencing the electronic glide slope from the ILS we saw we were slightly more than half scale deflection low and corrected back onto the glide slope. We received a 'GLIDESLOPE' GPWS indication while correcting. When back on the glide slope we looked out at the PAPI again and saw it still showed two white and two red lights despite the change in glide path. The ILS chart for runway 4 does not mention that the glide slope and visual glide path are not coincident. I believe when we noticed we were low on the glide slope; the PAPI should have been indicating three reds and a white or maybe even four reds.There is something wrong with the alignment of the PAPI equipment for the runway. It should not have shown us to be two white and two red lights that low on the glide slope. The conditions were visual and easily fixed once we referenced the electronic glide slope fully.The Airport Operations Staff and the FAA need to conduct an alignment of the PAPI equipment. There could be a situation in low visibility or very dark conditions where an aircraft arrives at the minimum decision altitude; has the runway environment or approach lights in sight and relies on the PAPI to help keep the pilot's eyes outside to land; which could lead to an issue where they either see themselves as too high according to the PAPI (if it's aligned too low) or; if it only indicates two white two red at any altitude; may follow the PAPI to an unsafe landing either outside of the touchdown zone or short of the runway.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a problem with the alignment of the PAPI lights at LEX airport.
Date: 201501
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After a 15-hour day; Crew Scheduling changed our report time to a later time; and gives us our legalities based off of the incorrect time.   The time that Crew Scheduling gave us did not make sense; and due to delays with aircraft boarding we were not even going to make the later incorrect time.  I told the Schedulers that my calculations had us past our contractual time and that I would not be flying the last leg.  After deadheading on the last leg and finally gaining access to a computer; I looked at the trip in Company Scheduling system; and noticed that they had changed the report time.  I notified Crew Scheduling and they put in a limo time to change the report time back to the actual report time.  After a very long day; it is challenging enough to figure out the legalities with the new FAR 117 rules;  and then to have the Schedulers illegally change the report time and base your legalities off of the changed time makes it that much more difficult.  In talking to other Pilots in the lounge; they said that similar events had happened to them.   I am concerned that this is an ongoing problem with Scheduling.  I believe if this type of behavior is not corrected then it will end up catastrophically. Crews need to be very cognizant of their legalities and realize that even though Scheduling is supposed to back them up on their legalities; sometimes; when they need it the most; Scheduling can be their worst enemies and put them into an illegal situation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reports scheduling changing the crews' report time in the computer to not reflect a limo into the first flight; in order to allow the crew to fly the last flight of the day within duty limits. The crew detects the 'error' and the last flight is refused.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local 4 in a west bound configuration. We were advertising visuals to Runway 26R; ILS to 27L; and visual approach to Runway 28. An Embraer was joining the Runway 28 final at the final approach fix at the same altitude as a Widebody; flew through his final and approached my final for Runway 27L. The collision alert went off. I immediately issued traffic to the Widebody. If it wasn't for the immediate response of [the other local controller]; I would have had to send the Widebody around on a missed approach. It happened so fast; we had mere seconds to correct a potential collision.This was as close to a near miss as you can come. This happens all day; everyday at Atlanta tower. Arrival A joins the Runway 28 final at the same altitude as an aircraft established on the final for Runway 27L. The aircraft for Runway 28 flies through the final; the collision alert goes off; and we issue traffic. We then hold our breath and hope the Runway 28 aircraft turns tighter to get established on their final. If an aircraft joins the Runway 28 final at a 30 degree intercept; with the traffic in sight for Runway 27L; how can the Runway 28 aircraft keep their traffic in sight?  This is a catastrophic event waiting to happen.  Why are we joining two finals at the same altitude?  Stop joining the Runway 28 final at the same altitude as the Runway 27L traffic.  Stop taking short cuts; and join the Runway 28 final at 10 miles instead of 5 miles.




Synopsis: ATL Local Controller described a conflict between two air carrier aircraft when an Embraer cleared to fly a visual to Runway 28 failed to turn in a timely fashion and threatened a widebody aircraft established on final for Runway 27L.
Date: 202006
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: Off Duty
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was a DH sitting next to Passenger X. [He] had his mask off the whole flight.When asked by working crew during cart service; he did comply; then soon took it off again. I had to ask him 3 times again. (He was sniffling and coughing). Had 2 beers.After landing he got up to deplane took off his masks then exhaled really big and loud right down to the guests sitting under him.I asked again and he did comply. Offered me to bring my luggage down I said politely 'I'll get it thank you.' He stands extremely close to a passenger standing behind him and says loudly 'She doesn't want me to touch it.' As an employee; this type of behavior is very challenging.Remind guests face mask must be worn; not complying may result in reject of boarding next time.




Synopsis: Dead heading Flight Attendant reported issues with a passenger who was not wearing a COVID-19 mask at all times on the flight.