elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Recirculation Fan
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff; a Flight Attendant called the cockpit to report a smoke/burning smell. I did not smell it; but my First Officer did smell it faintly and described it as a sweet burning smell. I sent the Relief Pilot to the cabin to investigate. He reported back to me that yes he did smell a faint odor but it was going away. He interviewed some of the passengers and the consensus was a sweet burning smell. After he returned to the cockpit I went to the cabin to do my own investigation. I smelled nothing out of the ordinary during my time in the cabin. Some of the passengers I interviewed claimed that the smell had come in waves; others said that the smell was gone. In absence of any current unusual smells I decided to continue the flight. I instructed the flight attendants to periodically monitor the cabin and many of the passengers assured me they would get a message to me if the smell came back. Just under an hour into the flight I and my First Officer saw and smelled heavy smoke in the cockpit. We immediately donned our oxygen masks and I declared an emergency along with my intentions to divert immediately. Shortly into our diversion the smoke began to subside and approximately five minutes later we noticed the EICAS displayed a RIGHT REIRC FAN message. As this was going to be an overweight landing and my First Officer was low time in the aircraft; I assumed pilot flying duties. As we flew the smoke subsided and we removed our oxygen masks. I began getting a slight headache and decided to stay on oxygen for the remainder of the flight. I performed an uneventful overweight landing. The cause of the first smoke smell remains a mystery. The second smoke smell was most likely caused by the burning up of the right recirculation fan.




Synopsis: B767 Captain is informed of a sweet burning smell in the cabin shortly after takeoff. The smell is very faint and quickly dissipates. One hour into the flight more vigorous smoke is detected in the cockpit and the flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport. The smoke began to subside and approximately five minutes later the EICAS displayed a RIGHT REIRC FAN message.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Student could not stop the plane and over ran the end of the runway by about 20 feet.  No damage or injury. Should have told student to go-around and since he did not; I should have lifted the flaps to gain more runway stopping action.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported landing long resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Sitting at the gate loading [passengers] we turned on the APU to cool the cabin. After turning on the bleed air the ground crew alerted us that the engines where starting. The crew looked at the engine instruments and the only indication of a start was N1 at 1.5 % or so. The crew also noticed both start switches in ground. The start levers where in cut off. The crew had no intention of starting the engines and where shocked to see the start switches in ground. All earlier checklist had been completed and the crew did not know how the start switches where moved to ground. The crew immediately put the switches in off. It was less than two minutes the switches would have been in ground. Make sure all checklists are completed. Also I will be doing a double check the start switches are in off before opening the app bleed valve.


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


Synopsis: First Officer Reported that after starting APU at the gate to cool aircraft; ground personnel report both engines starting; requiring Flight Crew to turn off APU Bleed Air and investigate; discovering both engine start switched  were left in Ground Position.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff we offset to the right for wake turbulence and then I got busy with after takeoff duties. When I looked up the First Officer had started a right turn prior to the SID-required turn. At that point I directed her to turn back and during doing so ATC started vectoring us and giving [us] heading and altitude assignments. My distraction to monitor and having too much head down time during after takeoff check. Better briefing and expectations while flying with newer First Officers; and for me to not get distracted at such critical time.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported a track deviation occurred departing LAX.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
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: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF MFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the approach into MFR; in VMC conditions; we called the airport in sight; and were cleared for a visual approach to runway 32.  We began visual descent to the airport over the mountainous terrain. The terrain was in sight.  Passing over the last line of mountain ridges; about 15-20 miles south of the runway; we got a GPWS Terrain warring.  The Pilot Flying (PF) arrested the descent; until we were further clear of the mountains and then resumed the descent.  The lowest altitude I saw on the Radar altimeter was 2;200 feet as we passed over the ridge line.  We had visual contact with the terrain; descent rates were normal; and there was no critical threat.  The PF simply 'shaved it a little too close.'The airport is surrounded by high mountains to the south.  The PF may have gotten just slightly low over the last ridge line; trying to get positioned for the approach to RW 32; with normal descent rates.We should have maintained a slightly higher altitude over the ridge line; and then a faster rate of descent; between the mountains and the airport; in order to get on glide path.




Synopsis: An air carrier descending into MFR activated the EGPWS while descending over the mountains on a visual for Runway 32 but arrested the rate of descent to stop the alert.
Date: 202010
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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger seated in XX5 wore [a] mask during boarding however was not wearing [a] mask after being seated. When approached by the Flight Attendant the passenger said she had a medical exemption and did not have to wear the mask.  Customer Service Supervisor was called and passenger said they would comply; but continued to lift the mask off her face stating she had difficulty breathing.  As a possible solution the Flight Attendant offered the passenger an airline paper supplied mask as an alternative however the passenger's behavior became further defiant and belligerent.  It is my understanding other passengers were also expressing concerns about [the] passenger not wearing [a] mask.  I made the decision to have her removed from our flight.  Customer service escorted both she and her companion off the aircraft.  Customer Service Supervisor did a stupendous job.  Extremely professional and helpful.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger was removed from the flight due to non-compliance with face mask policy.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UUO.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D UUO; Class E ZAN
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called FAI FSS to be briefed on a flight to UUO. Brief was good and I specifically asked about NOTAMs and TFRs. At the time there was a big TFR adjacent to UUO. In fact the TFR specially had a notch cut out of it to allow VFR traffic in and out of UUO! Upon arrival at UUO (12.5nm out) a voice came up on UUO's CTAF freq. requesting me to come up on TOWERs frequency 123.45 which I did; requested and received clearance to land. UUO is a small typical dirt Alaskan non towered airport and has never had a tower before; ever! Talking with tower after landing I was informed this was a temporary tower due to the volume of increased traffic for the wild forest fire. Good idea FAA. So I immediately called back to Fairbanks FSS and complained about not be given that NOTAM during preflight.The reply was that the NOTAM for UUO was accidentally filed at IYS; another airport 25 miles away.




Synopsis: C206 pilot reported being advised in AUUO area to contact temporary tower. Pilot stated there was apparently an error in filing the Tower NOTAM; which was filed for a different airport.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ONT; Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the ground; we were cleared to climb via the SNSHN 1 RNAV Departure by Tower except climb and maintain 14;000 FT.  On departure shortly after the POM hold down fix of 8;000 FT; SoCal directed us to change the transition from the filed and cleared LAS transition to the BEALE transition; and after LIVVI fix; cleared direct YELAH then climb and maintain 14;000 FT.  We were at a low altitude; I've never heard of changing transitions on the departure; we don't have time to load; execute; brief; and verify the new clearance prior to the branch point only seven miles away; so I said; 'Unable.'  ATC then step-climbed us to a higher altitude.  ATC later said another flight was able to do the change; and I said we didn't have time.  I say good for them.The next Controller did the same thing; directed us to another fix on the departure; but since we now had time and were above 15;000 FT we complied.  I asked that Controller why the transition changed.  They said they were using them to deconflict traffic.  I asked; 'Why didn't we receive the other transition on the ground?'  He said they didn't know about the traffic then and that they were using transitions to deconflict on the fly.   I asked; 'If I took the other transition; how high would we have been cleared?'  He said 14;000 FT.This needs to stop ASAP; no pun intended.  We go to great lengths to file; load; verify; brief; and execute the clearance. We take many minutes to setup on the ground in a stationary environment and cannot expect to; in the heat of the moment with two minutes to go to a branch point; change transition just to make it easier for ATC.  This is a downright dangerous action by ATC.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported he was uncomfortable with an ATC request to modify an ONT departure procedure during the climb; stating the increased workload at that time would be a safety issue.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Climbing through approximately FL250; we encountered significant wake turbulence and accompanying abrupt flight path interruption/momentary moderate-to-severe turbulence-like event exacerbated by lack of yaw damper (MEL'd). Pilot flying (First Officer) did an excellent job of immediately disconnecting the autopilot and recovering the aircraft to a stable attitude. We had considered the MEL'd yaw damper and potential implications during our preflight activities. The weather package indicated no significant weather or turbulence on our planned route or destination. We researched (per the MEL) the flap maneuvering speeds (22-3) and ensured the remaining provisos were complied with. (This aircraft had flown approximately eight legs since the yaw damper had been deferred the previous day.)We briefed the flight attendants regarding the anticipated more uncomfortable ride (especially for the B) and communicated with them throughout the flight regarding their safety and status. After the upset; I immediately made a PA describing to the customers what had occurred and then checked on the flight attendants. Despite light-to-moderate chop experienced at FL340 until west of JOT (ATC reported no smooth altitudes until 'west of the lake' (Michigan); our flight attendants never complained nor did they report any issues with our customers.Dispatch/Maintenance should restrict aircraft with inoperative yaw dampers to short haul routes and should prioritize immediate repair. If this MEL is considered safe (questionable); then pilots should receive training on the flight characteristics with the yaw damper inoperative. Consideration should be given to additional provisions within the MEL language restricting to 'flights one hour or less or no significant weather or turbulence enroute;' and perhaps ATC should be informed and require a minimum in-trail separation. (Once we climbed above the con level; we saw our threat. Until then we were not aware we were climbing behind another aircraft on our route.) Customers should receive some sort of compensation for enduring an (unnecessary) rough ride.




Synopsis: B737-300 Captain reported control difficulties when they encountered wake turbulence at FL250 in an aircraft with the yaw damper out of service.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: DC Rectifier
Component problem: Failed; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Maintenance Controller reported miscommunication over an MEL that allowed an aircraft to fly in a non-airworthy status.[Maintenance] in ZZZ called about Aircraft X had a 24 ELEC FAULT GEN INOP message. Several attempted resets with no help. A MEL was mentioned. Initial read through of the MEL and procedures appeared to be able to defer left generator. RTM was not generating any faults related to aircraft for chapter 24 at the time message was present on aircraft. I got dispatch approval and deferred Left generator with [Maintenance] reference log number XXXXXXX. After engine start noticed that RTM had generated a fault for Left Generator 24 ELEC FAULT GEN INOP with a no dispatch under the reference column. Reread the MEL and found an exception for INFO Message 24 ELEC FAULT GEN INOP making it a non-dispatchable MEL with this message. Immediately attempted to contact ZZZ maintenance and the flight crew of the aircraft to prevent Take off. The aircraft had already departed for ZZZ1. Contacted ZZZ1 maintenance about MEL not being dispatchable and that it would have to be fixed prior to departure from ZZZ1. Applied a CAR to lock down aircraft in ZZZ1 on arrival. ZZZ1 maintenance worked the item and was able to repair per A220 FIM and clear log item. To prevent future occurrences a highlight or bullet point in the section of the MEL for not being able to dispatch with that Message. Making it easier to identify message.




Synopsis: Maintenance Controller reported miscommunication over an MEL that allowed an aircraft to fly in a non-airworthy status.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Incident occurred upon touch down; one of the galley carts from back of the plane came loose and hit one of the mechanics that was sitting in his seat (1G I believe). Hit him on his right arm. After hitting him it hit the forward bulkhead and ripped it off its hinges; causing excessive damage to the aircraft bulk cargo. Also we had to call emergency rescue. We found out that the mechanic was hurt when one of the flight attendants came and told us to call an ambulance. The landing was nice and smooth; we don't know what caused the cart to come loose.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported that a galley cart came loose during landing; causing damage to the aircraft and injuring a mechanic.