elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were being vectored from the north for a visual approach to Runway 27 at MEM. During the descent from 4;000 FT to 3;000 FT the  Controller told us we were re-entering Class B airspace and that we had been out of Class B airspace for about 1 mile.  The threat was (and continues to be) the lack of a practical; real-time means for pilots to detect where they are in relation to the base of Class B airspace around an airport. It is totally impractical (too attention consuming during a critical phase of flight) to try to monitor on the EFB the aircraft's position relative to the varying radials; DMEs and altitudes.  Suggestions from a piloting standpoint:  1) Slow to 200 KTS whenever approaching a Class B airspace. The downside of this approach is increased delays at airports; as Class B starts a considerable distance from airports.  2) Never descend before it is required to make altitude restrictions on the approach. The downside here is the increased potential for being high/fast if there is any misjudgment.  From an automation standpoint; enhance automation; showing Class B airspace on the PFD or; perhaps better (to avoid excessive data on the PFD); showing aircraft location on a moving map on the Class B page of the EFB.  From a regulatory standpoint: simplify the speed requirement; perhaps to be similar to that used by Canada (200 KTS if below 3;000 AGL within 10 miles of an airport).




Synopsis: Wide Body Aircraft Captain is informed by ATC aircraft is reentering Class B after having been out of it. Reporter comments on the difficulty of monitoring Class B in the flight deck with current instruments.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon arriving to the aircraft an extreme strong odor was coming through the jetway from the aircraft cabin. During my preflight security check and preparing the galley for inflight service the C Flight Attendant came back and stated the odor in the cabin is toxic and we should not stay in the cabin; I agreed and we left to the jetway. The C Flight Attendant alerted the Captain of the toxic odor. The Captain called Maintenance and went through several procedures to clear the cabin of the toxins. Maintenance could not clear the cabin and could not assure that it would not reoccur. The next morning my throat was sore/scratchy and my eyes were irritated. A more routine Maintenance Program; clearing and cleaning hydraulic fuel leaks from cabin air sources. Certifying and documentation in the cabin log book when these checks and cleanings are done. It is important that all crew members should be in the loop with all aspects of cabin health and safety.




Synopsis: An A319 Flight Attendant reported he and other crew members exited the aircraft because of a strong toxic odor which Maintenance was unable to clear. The flight was canceled and he had physical symptoms the following day.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aileron Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We are currently in the process of returning X number of 737-MAX aircraft to service following the accomplishment of an EO. When auditing the paperwork on Aircraft Y; it was discovered that the tooling required to accomplish Step XX F.X; and F.Y was unavailable. This caused a retroactive audit of previously completed paperwork on Aircraft Z. It was determined that the tasks were stamped as accomplished in spite of the lack of available tooling. The aircraft was not in service at the time; however it was due to be released. The paperwork was pulled and the required tooling has been ordered to ensure correct accomplishment of these steps on both aircraft prior to aircraft release.The reference material uses generic three digit ATA codes (XX-XX-XX; XX-YY-XX) instead of complete ATA codes to identify applicable AMM references for a given task. Additionally; the maintenance tasks are all very similar when performed and easily confused. Furthermore the job card does not include the tooling in the bill of required materials; further obfuscating the tooling requirement. Finally; the tasks all have very similar nomenclature. You can be easily fooled into thinking you've accomplished more than one task when you have; in fact; only accomplished one; or part of another task. It is also worth noting that other similar task cards for this fleet type are significantly less vague. It appears that this card was created quickly with little mind paid to details. This is also the first time this job card has been accomplished at this station.Include the full ATA code for each task. Include the required tooling on the job card bill of materials. Add a note to Step XX  F.X and F.X indicating that tooling is required to complete these steps.




Synopsis: Technician reported ambiguity in AMM references for task cards resulted in not using the required tooling to return B737 MAX aircraft to service after storage.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SAT.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
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: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC had been vectoring our aircraft so as to fit other traffic in front of us. After we were clear for the visual approach; we were too high for safe approach in my judgment. The FO (First Officer) said; 'I am going to maneuver the aircraft' and began to S turn. I stated 'No we are not' and 'Go Around' A Soft Go Around was accomplished. The FO wanted to hack the approach by S turning from what would be a steep approach. The FO had been up for 21 hours at this point as he is a commuter who got up at 2am PDT the previous day I think the FO was tired and just wanted to put it on the ground. His subsequent landing was quite hard. I believe his judgment was affected by fatigue. Ultimately we did the right thing by going around. Unfortunately; I; as the Captain had to command it.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported having to command a go around to fatigued First Officer on an unstabilized approach.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HDC.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D HDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON MSY
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the approach to HDC; New Orleans was vectoring me for the ILS to Runway 18. They gave me a heading to join the LOC and cleared me for the ILS to Runway 18. Moments later they ask if I was receiving the LOC; and advised me that a previous aircraft had let them know that they had not received it. I replied that I was not receiving the LOC; and they ask if I would like the RNAV to Runway 18. I replied yes; and they immediately cleared me for the RNAV to Runway 18. I had expected that ATC was going to vector me back around in a box pattern to set up for the RNAV to Runway 18; and when they simply cleared me for that approach; I started scrambling; since I was single pilot to reset the radios for the approach and join the inbound course. I was able to join the inbound course; a couple of miles outside the FAF; however upon being handed over to HDC Tower; Tower immediately advised me of a low altitude alert from New Orleans Approach. I had descended below the minimum altitude on the approach; prior to the FAF. I broke out of the clouds into VMC at approximately 1200 ft.; 600 ft. below the minimum altitude. I believe that the cause for this event is my failure to NOT accept the clearance for an approach that I was not completely set up and ready for. I should have asked for vectors in a box pattern to join the approach; and give myself time to fully brief the approach; have the radios set up; and be completely prepared prior to joining the final approach course. My hurried effort to set up the radios for the approach and join the course distracted me from flying the airplane and cause me to bust the altitude.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 Pilot reported being alerted by Air Traffic Control that LOC Approach was not working and therefore being cleared for an RNAV approach completely unprepared which caused a descent below minimum altitude.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The rides had been bad and several aircraft had been asking for ride reports and I was spacing for the Class B airport. An E170 was eastbound at FL350 and requesting FL330 because of the bad rides. The E170 was in Sector X's airspace and I had just given Sector X the first of two northbound arrivals at FL340. In the next couple of minutes I was distracted by a situation in the southern part of my sector. When I scanned back to the north; the E170 had entered my airspace and the first arrival northbound was in Sector X. I gave the E170 a clearance for lower and Conflict Alert went of with an E145; the second arrival at FL340. I turned E170 20 degrees left to add more space between them. There was no loss of separation but it felt like a safety issue to me because they were closer than I usually let airplanes get and I had just been dealing with the other situation in the sector. I need to take a moment to refocus after some kind of distraction. When pilots are trying to get out of bad rides; it adds a sense of urgency to get them out of it as quickly as possible. If I would have taken just a moment to scan my entire sector again I would have made another evaluation at the traffic situation with the E145; and probably waited two minutes before descending E170.




Synopsis: Distracted by attempts to resolve 'bad ride' reports; an Enroute Controller experienced a near separation loss.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On DATE we were departing from ZZZ around XA:00 local time. We operate a type aircraft and was departing ZZZ to ZZZ1 to return to our home base with 4 passengers onboard. I was flying as PIC of the trip. Shortly after takeoff; we noticed a small flock of large black birds. We estimated the number to be around 5. During this critical phase of flight there was nearly no time to react. One bird struck the nose of our aircraft around 400 ft AGL. It created a loud thump noise throughout the cabin. The pilot monitoring and I accessed the situation and decided the plane was flying as it should; with no indication of engine damage or unusual flight characteristics. Due to the weather impact of ZZZ we decided to fly under 200 kts and head to a more serviceable airport. We diverted to ZZZ2 and checked in with ZZZ Approach to get a VFR clearance into the Bravo then land at ZZZ2. During cruise flight our passengers made us aware that there was blood on our left wing as well. We landed safely at ZZZ2 and parked at [the] FBO. We got out to check the damage and was surprised to see the nose cone damaged significantly. Part of the bird was inside the nose compartment as it made a hole and good size dent to the nose of the aircraft. There was blood as well on the left wing also around the right engine. After a closer look there does not seem to be any damage to the blades of the right engine. We talked to Company at ZZZ3 and to determine what the next steps are. We grounded the aircraft at ZZZ2 and will be in further discussions with maintenance to determine what the next steps will be to get our plane back home safely.




Synopsis: Corporate aircraft Captain reported hitting a bird and then having to deviate.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was completing the patient leg of the flight; delivering the patient to University Hospital under night vision goggles. I was following the GPS guidance information and didn't identify the hospital; subsequently flying past the hospital on the left side of the aircraft by one mile (airspeed approximately 90 KTS). I asked the med crew if they had the hospital in sight and the left side crew member said he had it behind the aircraft. I made a right hand turn to return to the hospital and in the process; I may have flown into the Class D airspace for ZZZ International Airport. I had the Tower frequency in the VHF radio but my pin selector switch was down inadvertently so I am not aware if ZZZ Tower tried to make contact. I placed my pin switch up at that moment; but didn't hear any traffic pertaining to my flight. I had the appropriate squawk code assigned to my aircraft in the transponder. I continued the flight to the University Hospital with the intent to contact ATC once on the ground; but was unable to find a good telephone number.In the future when flying night vision goggles over a highly lit up congested area; it may be easier to identify a hospital unaided. I have flown into this hospital using night vision goggles in the past; but in this circumstance; it was from a direction that I was not familiar with. Better crew coordination between the experienced medical crew and myself could have helped greatly. Medical crew thought I had the hospital in site and that I was making an orbit to align myself with prevailing winds; but did not state that we overflew the hospital until I asked if they had the hospital in site. Even though I had no intention of flying into Class D airspace; an advisory call to Tower while inbound would have made this situation nonexistent as they would have known of my intentions.




Synopsis: Bell-407 pilot initially missed sighting the destination hospital while utilizing GPS and night vision goggles in a well-lit city environment. Pilot may have also inadvertantly infringed on nearby Class D airspace.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Aircraft component: Compressor Stator/Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was acting as PIC/Pilot Monitoring.  At approximately 50 KTS; the ECAM annunciated '#1 Engine Compressor Vane.' I assumed control of the aircraft and rejected the takeoff without incident.  After performing our prescribed duties per SOP; we returned to the gate. There appeared to be a history of related maintenance issues in the logbook.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports receiving an ECAM message 'ENG 1 Compressor Vane' at 50 knots and rejects the takeoff.  Previous write ups for the same anomaly had been noted in the Logbook.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A321
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout of ZZZ; approximately 10;000 feet; had an ECAM message ENG1 COMPRESSOR VANE. After following ECAM procedures the only instruction is to avoid rapid thrust movements. We continued our Climb and our route to ZZZ1. In order to avoid rapid thrust movements; I descended using VS instead of open descent. At approximately 28;000 feet on the arrival the engine made it to idle and I heard an audible bang from the number one engine followed by the ECAM message ENG1 STALL. After accomplishing the first step of the procedure; THR LEVER1....Confirm....IDLE; The engine failed and we got the ECAM message; ENG1 FAIL. We followed the procedure and decided not to restart due to engine damage. We continued into ZZZ1 single ENG and had an uneventful landing. We stopped on the runway to allow inspection of the aircraft. We were given the all clear and taxied to the gate uneventfully. Mechanical anomaly caused by a failure of either the low compressor bleed valve or the variable stator vane.


Second narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ we got an ECAM for engine 1 compressor vane which guided us to not make any rapid thrust changes. We continued on our way to ZZZ1. Beginning our descent on the arrival leaving FL330 around or below FL300 when power went idle we experienced an ENG1 compressor stall upon following that procedure which calls for thrust lever idle the number 1 engine failed. We continued our descent and approach into ZZZ1 landing. We stopped on the runway for the fire crew to inspect the aircraft after which we taxied to gate.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported an ECAM engine problem which led to engine failure resulting in a single engine landing.