elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Pedal
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I noticed during takeoff that the heels of my shoes were binding or hanging up on the floor as we went down runway for takeoff. It felt like the rubber heels were peeling back and my ability to depress the rudder pedals were affected by this sensation. After airborne; First Officer (F/O) and I discussed what appeared to be a new floor skid pad that is abrasive. Same material as foot rests are sometimes covered in. He didn't think they should be there and I don't ever recall this [type of] flooring in simulators (Sims) or planes in my 15-years on plane. We called Maintenance Control to see if someone installed this accidentally and he said it is a new item with paint and anti-skid material. He didn't sound real enthused by it; but said that's what someone decided they'd be doing; going forward. I found the material to be a hindrance to smoothly controlling the rudder pedals on takeoff and I'd suggest they remove it and just stick to what was always there; i.e. nothing but a smooth painted surface.

Callback: Reporter stated he was not sure if the B767-300 aircraft had recently come out of a Contract Maintenance Check; but the abrasive anti-skid material applied on the cockpit floor under the rudder pedals created an unsafe condition. He discussed the seriousness of the situation with their Air Carrier's Fleet Technical Engineer and Check Pilot group and believes they immediately acted on the issue. Since then; he has not seen any other B767's with the same condition.



Synopsis: During takeoff; a pilot noticed the heels of his shoes were binding and hanging-up on the cockpit floor; creating an unsafe flight condition and a hindrance to smoothly controlling the rudder pedals on a B767-300 aircraft. An abrasive; non-skid material had been applied to the floor directly under the rudder pedals.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft X was pulled out of service for a report from a passenger that a 2 to 3 inch snake crawled across her foot. I received a call later that afternoon from a mechanic assigned to accomplish [the maintenance check] to look for the snake. The mechanic has no knowledge of snakes and the paperwork assigned to do the task does not support anything on that level; I asked him not to go on the aircraft until we could receive some help from someone trained on how to handle snakes in the event that we did find one. I then called the manager on duty and asked him to try to get a hold of someone on duty at the airport that can help just like we do with pest control. The supervisor on duty took the paperwork from the mechanic and did the job himself; saying; that every [mechanic] refused to accomplish the job. I believe this behavior was dangerous and reckless not only was he putting someone in danger but also himself.The reason the aircraft was taken out of service was because the write up was taken seriously; the [maintenance check] is a pest control phase inspect and monitor card; the pest that the mechanic was going to look for was out of the normal; we need to put a little more thought on how we approach things of this nature so we can keep ourselves and our passengers safe. Everyday all types of things are brought on board the aircraft without anyones knowledge and our aircraft travel and sit overnight with lots of time for anything to welcome itself on board; in a nutshell we need to ask for the right help when needed no matter how small it appears to be.




Synopsis: Maintenance reported their Supervisor improperly handled an inspection involving a snake on the plane.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While climbing through FL240 to level at FL250; our aircraft was nearly hit by a man made object which looked to be a drone. It was black and silver in appearance with some kind of light on it and looked to be approximately 2-3 feet in diameter. We were flying the RNAV departure with the autopilot engaged. Our approximate heading at the time of the incident was approximately 063 and the object appeared to come at us at a 45-degree angle; crossing in front of the cockpit from left to right; missing the aircraft by 200-300 feet at our altitude. I am unsure of how fast the object was moving; but we were climbing at 290kts IAS.  The First Officer was the pilot flying; and did not see the object. We were in radar contact and talking with Fort Worth Center and the sighting was promptly reported to them; at which time they alerted other aircraft in the area of the object. They had no track on the object; and our aircraft never generated a TCAS alert. I was quite shocked to see something like this at that altitude; I had no idea that something that size could be up that high.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain climbing through FL240 reported a near miss with a UAS approximately 2-3 feet in diameter.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Multiple changes in flight planning; STARS; headings; fixes; crossing intersection and runways. Multiple times; a heading and altitude off the STAR was given; then assigned direct to a fix; and clearance for another STAR was given. Sometimes within 10 miles of the fix with a crossing restriction. It was difficult to find; load; verify; and execute the FMS in time to meet navigation requirements. ATC would then assign another heading after reporting that we couldn't comply. The flight was very chaotic. Even after reviewing and discussing multiple STAR options during preflight; it was still very frustrating and difficult to comply with all of ATC demands. Multiple STAR; runway; ATC clearance and route changes in a short amount of time in a very busy phase of flight and environment. Speed reductions instead of multiple heading clearances of the STAR; then cleared back to a fix of a different STAR; and runway. The FMC does not program or think fast enough to meet certain clearance demands.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported ATC issued multiple changes in the clearance during arrival into LAX; causing a safety concern because of the increased workload.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had PACK 2 Overload and fail at FL250 with PACK 1 already on MEL causing the cabin to rise rapidly. We [advised ATC] to get ATC priority to 10;000 ft. We ran the associated checklists and decided ZZZ was the closest suitable airport. Landed in ZZZ.PACK 2 overload with Pack 1 on MEL.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported a loss of cabin pressure due to a PACK 2 failure with PACK 1 on MEL.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Last day of 3 day trip. Evening departure after 19 hour layover. Arrived at airport approximately 40 minutes prior to pushback. Went to gate to drop off bags. FO stayed to complete Preflight. I went to Ops to flight plan. 25 minutes prior to push I returned to aircraft. Aircraft was not fueled. During Preflight; FO notified me that the FO pubs bag was out of date. I confirmed that the CA's bag was also out of date. Since we had been using our current and up to date iPads for the Jeppesen charts; I assumed that we would be okay. Also due to the fact that we were not at a hub; I did not think we would be able to replace the bags. We had a late push due to fuel servicing. After we were at cruise; I checked and found out that I was supposed to contact the FODM (Flight Operations Documentation Manager) and get a meter authorizing us to proceed. I immediately informed FODM via ACARS and FODM sent me the required meter. I placed the meter in the CA's pubs bag as directed. The Jeppesen Pubs had been expired and we were the only ones that caught it after 2 days.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the onboard pubs were out of date and had gone unnoticed for several days; with the flight crew using their EFB for normal operations.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying direct to NORDK for the NORDK3 arrival into SLC. As I neared NORDK waypoint ATC advised me of a reroute which was direct LHO for the LHO3 arrival and to descend to 16000. I complied and started my descent from FL220. I was then advised to turn 15 degrees right due to metering into SLC; I complied. I stayed on this heading for some time before ATC advised me that metering into SLC was taken care of and that I was now cleared direct to LHO and to resume the LHO3 arrival. I complied with a left turn to LHO. Upon crossing LHO I descended to 14000 per the arrival. A short period after I descended I was asked to copy a phone number for a possible pilot [deviation]; I complied. I continued the remainder arrival which ended with a visual approach to RWY 34L without incident. I disembarked my passengers and phoned the telephone number. A gentlemen answered and I identified myself; from there he explained to me what I had done. I was cleared direct LHO and to resume the LHO3 arrival not descend via the LHO3. He asked if there was anything I would like to add to the situation to which I said that I misunderstood the controller's clearance. I added that nothing was unusual with the flight and everything was normal. Looking back at this situation I should have asked for clarification on altitude and I also think given the situation ATC could have said something to the effect of; 'metering into SLC is no longer a factor you are now cleared direct LHO and resume the LHO3 arrival maintain 16000.'




Synopsis: C-90B pilot reported deviating from assigned altitude on arrival into SLC when he misunderstood an ATC clearance.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground RDU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Shortly after departure out of ZZZ; we obtained ATIS for RDU due to the short flight time. One of the ATIS NOTAMs listed Taxiway C at RDU closed between F and G.  There were numerous taxiway closures and I annotated them with the red drawing tool on my EFB 10-9 page.  Based on the ATIS; we briefed the ILS to Runway XXR.  We also briefed to expect to taxi D; A; to parking; when clearing the runway due to the C Taxiway closure NOTAM. After landing; Ground cleared us to taxi C; A; to the gate. However; taxiing clear of the runway; I went to Taxiway D based on the red area I had drawn on my EFB 10-9 page and the taxiway closure NOTAM. Half-way up Taxiway D; I noticed there were no closure markings or construction on Taxiway C.We queried Ground about our clearance and he stated 'C; A; to the gate.'  We mentioned we had taken D in error. He said 'no problem; continue D; A; to the gate.' We didn't mention the ATIS NOTAM as I wasn't sure if I had read it correctly. After aircraft shutdown; we looked at the ATIS again and noticed we had read the closure correctly and it was still listed in the current ATIS.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a taxiway was NOTAMed closed due to construction at RDU airport; however the NOTAM was not included in the ATIS information and ground control issued taxi instructions via the closed taxiway.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During descent into SGU Center cleared us from 16;000 FT to 13;000FT then asked which approach we wanted. My First Officer answered back that we wanted the LDA to 19. The Controller responded; 'Cleared direct IPPOD; cleared for the LDA [DME] Runway 19 into St. George.' We were in between HOPEB and IPPOD at that point. I looked at my approach chart and saw that I could descend to 10;300 FT. I put that altitude in the alerter and continued the descent. Through about 11;300 FT the Controller asked us if we were descending. My First Officer responded that we were descending on the approach as previously cleared. The Controller responded that she had only cleared us for the approach and had not cleared us to descend. I manually took control from the autopilot and leveled the aircraft. My First Officer asked if we needed to climb back up. The Controller responded that if we had the terrain insight we could continue the descent. We did have the terrain and were; at that point; passing over IPPOD. The Controller then re-cleared us for the approach. During this time my First Officer and the Jumpseater stated that they had both heard the first clearance of 'direct IPPOD and cleared for the LDA 19 approach.'The event occurred because the Controller cleared us for the approach. We were over a portion of the approach that had a specified lower altitude and had no reason to question the clearance or maintain a higher altitude. I don't know what we should have done differently. We receive clearances like this daily. And comply in the same way.




Synopsis: When cleared ['direct to IPPOD; cleared for the LDA DME Runway 19 approach to SGU'] the flight crew of a regional jet inappropriately began a descent from their assigned altitude of 13;000 MSL to the MEA at IPPOD of 10;300 MSL; apparently uncognizant of possible intervening high terrain between their location and IPPOD.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 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: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was asleep in the lower bunk of the pilot rest area woken up by the reading light turning on. Shortly after that I got a call from the Captain informing me that the flight attendants smell something burning in the cabin by door 2L. He asked the First Officer and myself to find out what we can and report back. I went to door 2L talked with several crew members about what they know and was directed to the lavatory at 2L. There was an electrical burning smell in the Lavatory and I took everything apart that I could looking for smoke or fire and found none. I went through the whole cabin searching for burning smell but was only able to detect the odor in the lavatory at 2L and reported to the Captain. After several minutes of searching I went to the cockpit to assist the crew there while the First Officer stayed in the cabin to assist there. The Captain and First Officer had finished the smoke fumes odor checklist and briefed me on what they had finished. We discussed the best location to divert and continued south to our diversion destination. The First Officer reported that he found an overheated and melted connector on one of the bulbs in lavatory at 2L the bulb was hard to remove because the connector was bent. We were not positive this was the source of the burning smell and continued the diversion with normal approach and landing.


Second narrative: During cruise flight; the cabin crew called the flight deck phone and reported a smell of electrical burning or something overheating. We ran the smoke; fire; fumes checklist. After discussing the situation with the flight crew; Dispatch; Maintenance; and the cabin crew; we decided the best course of action was to land at the next best suitable airport since the problem persisted; and we could not isolate where the smell was coming from and we had already shut down several systems. We made the determination to divert.


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew experienced a burning electrical odor coming from one of the lavatories. They advised ATC and diverted.