elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Door Warning System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Company procedures require a packs off takeoff. On climb out the packs are turned on after the first power reduction. Following our normal checklist procedures we found the cabin pressure differential still at zero. I informed ATC that we would be leveling off at 10;000 feet due to a pressurization problem. We had been operating with a deferred 'BULK CARGO DOOR' message. I 'recalled' the EICAS messages and 'CARGO DOORS' was displayed (indicating that more than one cargo door was open.) We returned without any further incident. On post flight we found the aft cargo door open approximately 4 inches. While Maintenance was cycling the door opened and closed I noticed the EICAS message would change from 'BULK CARGO DOOR' to 'CARGO DOORS'. Somewhere in my chain of events this change occurred with out notice. This message may have been there prior to our arrival at the aircraft. The loss of the word 'BULK' and an 'S' added to the 'DOOR' could have been easily overlooked. The EICAS system will display each door individually; as long as another door is not opened. When another door opens the display just rearranges the words. If a separate line were to have been displayed; its presence would have been obvious and our situation would have been prevented. When a part of a warning system is defective and deferred such as this; it should be kept from being displayed; instead of being constantly being part of the normal operation. Since the B747 cargo door incident; I thought this problem had been resolved.  As far as human factors are concerned; we had been operating this aircraft four nights in a row with 11 hours rest during the day. Sleep during the day averaged six hours.




Synopsis: B767 Captain experiences a lack of pressurization after takeoff and EICAS recall reveals a Cargo Door warning message. The flight returns to the departure airport where the door is found to be open four inches. The aircraft had been operating for several days with a cargo door warning system deferral.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Workload
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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger interfered and disrupted Flight Attendant crew duties. The passenger was noncompliance with policy and procedures put in place by the company; CDC ; FAA governing face coverings for flying. The passengers lack of compliance placed crew and fellow passengers at risk of contracting the COVID virus.This is a policy and safety issue that needs to be enforced from the top down.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was non-compliant with face mask policy and interfered with FA crew duties.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: There was a deferred maintenance discrepancy stating that the FMS keypad had a key or keys that would stick. We had flown the arrival and were transitioning to the ILS approach. I tried to sequence the FMS to the ILS; [but] a key stuck and the FMS did not sequence. The Captain was distracted and the airplane began a turn to the right; not continuing on a heading of 190 degrees. ATC immediately gave us a right turn around to a heading of 090 degrees to re-vector us for the ILS. We were vectored back on to the ILS and landed normally. The deviation occurred because both crew members were distracted by the problem with the keypad.




Synopsis: Sticking buttons on the FMS keypad of a CRJ-700 caused the FMS to not sequence to the ILS. The pilots became distracted and did not immediately recognize that the aircraft failed to maintain the proper heading.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Ignition System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During engine start with right ignition selected; the right engine started normally but the left engine did not light off. We followed the QRH and aborted the start. We then referred to the MEL for guidance. We both felt sure that there was the possibility to start the engine with the left ignition. While referring to the MEL we applied the procedure for the left ignition inoperative instead of the right ignition inoperative. The left engine was started with the left igniter and then the switch was moved to both. During cruise flight; when filling out the logbook; we reviewed the procedures we had followed and recognized [we had made an] error. We spoke with a mechanic at our next stopover to make sure he understood what system did not work and followed up with a call to Maintenance Control. Although we took our time; we should have been more thorough in our review of the MEL. Perhaps we were both so sure we were doing the correct procedure and just read what we were sure was correct. We did not question ourselves enough. I think the MEL could use some bold letters or highlighting to help with this particular situation. But as I look at the MEL now; it seams clear enough. In the heat of battle things sometimes look different.


Second narrative: Inflight the Captain and I questioned our call on which MEL item was [appropriate] for our abnormal start. ...we consulted with Maintenance Control who stated that all procedures we had followed were proper. MEL procedures for faulty ignition are a bit confusing which is why I submitted this report.


Synopsis: When their left engine failed to start the flight crew of a B737NG consulted the MEL and utilized a procedure therein and successfully started the engine.  While enroute they determined they may have used an inappropriate procedure for the situation.  After landing maintenance advised their chosen procedures were; in fact; appropriate.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Taxi in and noted approaching the gate that we got a Level 2 Hot Brakes. Parked aircraft and noted 573 degrees brake #2 and right after; brake #5 also indicated 573 degrees. [We] notified Maintenance on ground headset that we had hot brakes and were writing this up in the maintenance log. This gate arrival instruction specifically states that this gate does not allow single engine taxi in. We weighed approximately 411;000 LBS. Airplane wanted to accelerate and braking was required.  Relatively light weight MD-11... had to use brakes to control taxi speed. Talking to Maintenance after block in; hot brakes have been a common occurrence on three nearby gates and we can add ours to this as well. Most aircraft have apparently been MD-11s. An aircraft in the past few days had to have a tire changed because the fuse plugs melted coming into one of these gates. I have mentioned this before and in my opinion; common sense needs to prevail. There are times certainly when less than all engines running should not be done. We are all pretty much aware of the jet blast issues on some of these gates. That said; to make an all encompassing prohibition potentially presents another safety issue; an overheated; exploding tire; for example. Is it not possible to come up with some other guidelines that provide some relief and would allow us for example; to shutdown an engine when we are lightweight coming into gates where this is now prohibited?




Synopsis: A light weight MD-11 developed hot brakes during taxi in because of brake usage but was constrained from taxiing into the assigned gate with less than all engines operating.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Central Computer
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was a routine flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1; in a B757. We had a normal push back; cross bleed start and taxi. On the takeoff roll; we rotated on speed and pitched to approximately 15 degrees. Noted the airspeed appeared to accelerate in the climb more than normal so I pitched through the flight director to stop at 20 degrees but that did not arrest the abnormal airspeed acceleration. Around 1;000 to 1;500 feet in normal configuration (flaps 5; standard takeoff power and pitched just below twenty degrees) the airspeed entered the red over-speed tape. At the same time we received multiple master warning lights and bells; master caution; clacker; and multiple failure notifications of electrical and avionics in nature (such as red OVSPD; Rudder ratio; Mach Speed Trim; ATC fault; GEN DRIVE; Left EEC; Right EEC etc.). The Captain's instruments indicated over 400 knots and over 40;000 feet of altitude. The Captain and I agreed the standby instrument appeared normal around 185 knots in a climb. I disconnected auto throttles; switched off flight director and recovered the airplane at 180 knots leveling off at 4;000 feet using standby instruments and flaps 5. The Captain noted it appeared my instruments began returning to normal to match the standby instruments. The Captain's complete instrument suite remained failed through the rest of the event. The Captain requested priority handling] and an air turn back with vectors for Runway XX. One attempt was made to re-engage the flight director and autopilot to no avail. Uneventfully; we hand flew a VFR approach to landing. We then had a normal taxi to our remote gate and released Fire Rescue vehicles from assistance.




Synopsis: B757-200 First Officer reported multiple alerts and a total loss of the Captain's instrument suite on initial climb; resulting in a return to departure airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: clear; 10
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed my Mooney 20 in the gear up configuration I reported the incident to the NTSB representative immediately. The FAA representative also made contact with me and requested several items of paperwork. Upon looking in the aircraft logs it has come to my attention that I inadvertently missed having the transponder certification renewed. I will make a strong effort to have this done and make a written reminder for my logbook for this specific task in the future. The flight started out to be a fly-over of a home that I am having built at an airpark. The flight was short in duration and once I flew over the house I made the split second decision to land there for some practice. At this point I was immediately behind the aircraft and was hurrying through my checklist to land. I failed to lower the gear but proceeded to land normally. Once the prop hit and I heard the belly scrape I knew immediately what I had done. Too little too late. In the future I will fly several miles out so I have time to properly execute my checklist for landing.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported making an unplanned landing; reporting pilot neglected to lower the landing gear.
Date: 201811
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had [Law Enforcement Personnel] onboard who boarded early. They wanted us to move passengers around them in coach to other seats so the [Law Enforcement Personnel] seated in coach could have more room. This caused issues with passengers around them and asked why they were not letting people sit around them. It was full and caused issues with economy plus seats being the only seats open.Even the Team Leader came back during passenger boarding trying to make sure 'we moved people'. This is not an appropriate conversation to have from [Law Enforcement Personnel] or to put crews in this position when they are to remain anonymous when passengers are onboard.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported that passengers were asked to reposition around the cabin to allow additional space for Law Enforcement Personnel.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMMX.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMMX
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Taking an air carrier with GPS into MMMX- weather lousy; we were a few minutes from diverting in the hold north of SLM.  We knew about the GPS problems after SMO for the ILS 05R- we had the First Officer (pilot flying) set to intercept the SMO 168R outbound; I had the MEX radial setup for the lead turn to the ILS.  We agreed that he would intercept the SMO radial and once tracking; go to heading hold and I would change his radio to the ILS; and he would turn onto the ILS course after my radial was crossed.  The GPS went into DR about 8 DME from SMO; well before the other time I had landed on this runway.  SMO was working well until we crossed the VOR and received a VOR fail.  We went ahead and turned to a 168 heading to allow the VOR to return.  Unknown to me; even though I had stated several times that the GPS was in DR and not reliable; the First Officer decided to use that display and we got off course with the radial turn.  Approach didn't like the turn-on to the ILS and sent us around.  Since we were very short on fuel; I was able to talk Approach into vectoring us back for the approach again; and this time with vectors onto the ILS.  The GPS was in DR for all of this time.  The second approach was successful.  After landing; the GPS returned to normal during taxi in.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain experiences GPS failure approaching SMO on the approach to Runway 5R at MMMX; which had been expected due to previous experience. The plan for executing the approach with radio navigation only is not followed faithfully resulting in an ATC commanded go-around. The second approach is successful. Holding for weather caused a low fuel situation.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E M98
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Several helicopters were circling over the Minnesota State Fairgrounds covering a protest when a multi-rotor drone copter was seen over the intersection of Como Avenue and Snelling Avenue. It appeared that one [helicopter] pilot maneuvered away from the drone as he came toward the intersection from the North. The drone was operated over people going to the fair. The FAA needs to emphasize the extreme danger of having a lost link near a manned helicopter over a large crowd of people. This hazard has not been reduced to an acceptable level of risk through certification. Furthermore; it is impossible to see nearby helicopters in time to see and avoid in urban areas like where the amateur pilot was working. Such a collision would be catastrophic (resulting in multiple fatalities).




Synopsis: An observer; pilot qualified; reported a UAS at about 400 feet in conflict with several helicopters circling near the Minnesota State Fairgrounds.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Repairman
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Other / Unknown; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was sent to Gate XX to Aircraft X by my Lead so the original pilot can fix his write up on Aircraft X log book. When I got to the gate the aircraft was already push back on the aisle way. I used the ramp headset and spoke to the Pilot. Who I was and why I was there. I ask him if it was ok for me to bring a lift & give him the log book through the window so he can fix his write up. He said ok. I ask him to turn his engine #1 off & he gave me a signal to come through engine #2 to double check I ask him again to turn his engine #1 off. he gave me the signal to come around engine #2 for the second time. I said ok; few minutes later I drove across in the front of the Aircraft X and park the lift on the right side of the aircraft under co pilot window. When I came back the ramp people were gone but the engine #2 was off. Since engine #2 was off I thought me and the Pilot were on] the same page. I park the lift and put the stabilizer down before I can go up the aircraft started rolling but engine #2 was still off. Try to move it but there was nothing I can do so I jumped off the lift. After that the aircraft impacted the lift.I was rushing and didn't follow all the steps. [I should have taken my] time.




Synopsis: Mechanic reported attempting to pass a logbook to flight crew through the flight deck window using a lift. The lift rolled backwards into the aircraft and the mechanic jumped from the lift.