elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground OAK
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Ground
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On the ground at OAK we were cleared to taxi on C to cross 28R and 28L at B. We were told to expedite our taxi due to an airplane on a four mile final. At the runways; the signage was unclear and we could only see c and a signs. My copilot had me turn onto the taxiway between the two signs thinking it was bravo; and the ground controller told us we had turned on A. He asked if we had crossed the hold short line; my copilot mistakenly answered no and he told us to hold our position. Immediately my First Officer restated our correct position and the controller told us to continue our taxi and requested the aircraft on final to go around.After we continued on A; we could then see the B sign to our right. Because of its placement between the two runways; it's not immediately visible from C unless you turn 90 degrees and face perpendicular to the runway. It is maybe 100 yards away from where you would expect it to be so it's not surprising that the supervisor advised they see problems like what we experienced a thousand times a year; and are hopeful to get better signage.


Second narrative: The Cessna missed B at Runway 28R (due to poor/no signage to indicate B) and crossed the hold bars of RWY 28R at A while a twin Cessna was about 1.5 miles out on final on a visual approach. To [significantly] reduce the possibility of this scenario and more serious ones like this from occurring I think a raised 'Taxiway B' sign would improve the chances of this happening a lot less.


Synopsis: When a Citation flight crew was cleared to cross runways 28R and L at OAK on B they mistakenly turned on A.  The flight crew and the Ground Controller agreed that poor signage was the major contributing factor; the Controller stating they see similar events 'a thousand times a year.'
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the GPS outage which cause 8 Aircraft to be grounded. Bombardier provided a SRSPA to have a -011 installed on [company] Aircraft with the breaker pulled. A CFI and a MEL (Minimum Equipment List) were created on the same side Number 2 due to the breaker being pulled per the SRSPA. I emailed the CFI first then followed by the MEL. - The CFI was for action outside the MEL; the MEL was for being called out in the SRPSA. During the final paperwork the Bombardier inspector only submit the MEL paperwork. The fact there were two FF-1 for one system. It was due to the lack of communication between the BAS Tech; BAS Inspector; and [Maintenance Control]. During all of this I forgot to import the on base CFI FF-1. All the safe guard which I had used before failed in this instead. The only way to prevent the CFI must be left open; in the work scope and an open item in the work scope to prevent missing items.




Synopsis: Technician forgot to accomplish maintenance procedure.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sierra 24
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C SBA
ATC / advisory: Tower SBA
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon touchdown on Runway 15L; port-side tire blew and pulled the aircraft to the left. Aircraft departed runway into dirt area between runway and taxiway. Aircraft sustained no damage other than blown tire; and no damage to objects on the ground occurred. Aircraft was towed to maintenance facility where tire was changed.Tire was relatively new (less than two years old). Likely cause of blow-out was harder than usual landing and/or excessive speed and energy upon touchdown.




Synopsis: Beech Sierra pilot reported a tire failure on landing that resulted in a runway excursion.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During preflight we received our weight and balance info from Dispatch via ACARS. We noted that something didn't seem right with the fuel breakdown. We had 111.9 lbs of total fuel but the fuel breakdown showed 5;600 in the left and right tanks with 0 in the center. When we called the Dispatcher to ask; he agreed that the fuel breakdown should have read 56;000 - 0 - 56;000. That is a 100;000 lbs error that could have easily caused an accident had our departure been at XA00; or if it had occurred in the middle of one of the many fatiguing sequences that we fly; and we missed the error. The correct weight and balance changed the takeoff CG by 4 units. I'm unfamiliar with the exact process so I cannot say [cause].This isn't the first time in recent history that this has happened. I'm not sure if something in the process of generating the weight and balance has recently changed or if everyone in the company is starting to get as fatigued and worn down as the pilots are. I'd suggest that the powers that be take a step back and rethink the process. Maybe add a step that addresses this problem specifically. Also; make the crews more aware that this is happening. Maybe add a line in the weight and balance that includes total fuel. In our case; a total fuel of 11;200 lbs is blatantly erroneous and another step in alerting the crew to the error.




Synopsis: Captain reported getting an incorrect ACARS fuel weight from Dispatch.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At top of descent; approximately 120 miles from our destination; the 'A' Flight Attendant called the cockpit and reported that there was a pungent chemical smell in the forward galley; lavatory area. She reported that her eyes were burning and the smell was getting worse. I got a faint smell of the fumes; but the First Officer did not smell anything out of the ordinary. As Captain; I directed the First Officer to don our oxygen masks and we expedited our arrival into our destination. During the descent; the 'A' Flight Attendant reported that the smell was progressing to the forward passenger cabin. At that point; I contacted our Dispatcher via ACARS to alert them of the noxious fumes. After landing; we contacted Operations via radio and coordinated maintenance. After all passengers were deplaned; I wrote up the fumes event in the logbook; and filled out the Aircraft Cabin Air Quality Report; coordinated maintenance. The crew then went to the Medical Center for medical evaluation. The Company is aware of quite a few aircraft with fume events. As to my knowledge; the Company is trying to find out the cause of these fumes. The company is working on a solution to the fumes events; [they are] trying to figure out where the fumes are originating and what is the cause of the fumes so a permanent fix can be achieved.




Synopsis: An A319 developed a pungent chemical smell in the cabin at the top of descent; so the crew donned oxygen masks to escape the fumes and sought medical attention after landing.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B HOU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a local flight from KSGR to [intended destination] I had requested flight following and was given a squawk code prior to departure from KSGR. I was instructed to remain clear of the Class Bravo Airspace by the KSGR Tower and then instructed to contact Houston Approach. Upon contacting Houston approach I requested an altitude of 3;500 feet (which would have potentially taken me into Class Bravo airspace) and a direct route to [my intended destination] with Flight Following. I was cleared to 3;500 feet and given a few vectors then told to resume own navigation and was cleared direct to [my intended destination]. About half way to [my intended destination] my passenger was not feeling well so we decided to abort the flight and return to KSGR. I informed approach that we wanted to return to KSGR and was asked to make a right 180 degree turn and then cleared direct to KSGR at or Below 3;000 feet the controller made a comment that I was 'right in the middle of the approach corridor to Houston Hobby' I do not think I actually breached the class Bravo airspace without permission or without being vectored into it by approach however I do not remember actually getting formal permission to enter the airspace. The channel was busy and I may have missed it. I just wanted to be on the safe side in case I inadvertently misunderstood my clearance. At no time was I told by ATC that I was in violation of the airspace nor was I asked to contact anyone upon the conclusion of the flight. I returned back to KSGR without incident and terminated radar services with the KSGR Tower.




Synopsis: A Cessna pilot reported a possible HOU Class B airspace violation while receiving ATC Flight Following service.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 605
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Lighting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: En route; copilot heard popping noise followed by white smoke coming out of the cabin lighting controller in the cockpit. I grabbed the checklist for smoke in the cockpit and determined that amount of smoke was insufficient to don the oxygen mask and goggles. The screen would only spark and emit smoke when moved. I [requested priority handling] and asked for a descent and a vector to the nearest suitable airport. ATC gave us a descent and told us to proceed direct ZZZ. We ran all appropriate checklist for our descent and landing. We transfer controls from the copilot to me and the landing was without incident. We taxied off the runway to the south ramp as directed by the Tower. Emergency personnel met the airplane and determined that no emergency actions were needed.


Second narrative: En route to ZZZ1 during cruise phase of flight; I heard a popping noise and observed sparks and smoke coming from wires in the cabin lighting controller screen. Name (Pilot Monitoring) [requested priority handling] while I (Pilot Flying) initiated an immediate descent as instructed by ATC. The screen would only emit sparks and smoke when touched or moved; and we determined that the small amount of smoke was not necessary for us to don oxygen masks and smoke goggles. During the descent; Name completed the 'Smoke/Fire/Fumes' checklist and we were vectored to ZZZ for the straight in Runway XX visual approach. Prior to the approach; Name and I transferred controls; as we were in an overweight landing condition; and I completed the approach and landing checklists. The landing and taxi were without incident.


Synopsis: CL-605 flight crew reported the Cabin Light Controller failed and began to emit sparks and smoke. The flight crew descended and diverted to make a precautionary landing.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff my air speed froze at 150 kts and we had an Airspeed Miscompare as well as an autopilot fail; SWPS (Stall Warning and Protection System) fault; Yaw Damper fail; and Ventral Rudder fail. I stopped my climb at about 2300 ft so that we would remain in VFR. We flew pitch and power until we could determine which airspeed was working. We said we wanted to return and received a new clearance for 2000 ft. We determined the right side was working. I transferred controls to the PM in the right seat. He flew the airplane and I ran all of the check lists. In the process of figuring out what airspeed was working we believe we might have gotten up to 200 kts; overspeeding the flaps that were in position. Our landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: EMB-505 Captain reported loss of the left side airspeed indication along with autopilot; yaw damper; stall warning; and ventral rudder failures. An uneventful return to base was completed using the right side airspeed.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Airport
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: All the aircraft mentioned above were vectored to remain clear of VFR traffic conflicts into BFI and PAE. The situation at hand should put IFR aircraft in close proximity to VFR aircraft not in communication with ATC. This situation is becoming more routine at S46 and controllers are being put into situations that are unsafe. We are having to make the decision to push jet traffic lower than normal and vector them around traffic that is not in communication with us. The airspace between PAE and BFI is extremely complex and limited. The airspace between PAE and BFI needs to become controlled airspace or the Bravo at least needs to be lowered. With the addition of PAE commercial service it has brought new conflicts that have been proven to be unsafe. S46 needs help with Class Bravo redesign and it needs to happen fast. The supervisors also need to be paying attention more. A handoff or the position should have been split. This has been a problem also with the addition of the PAE commercial service; the supervisors are not splitting the PAE and BFI sectors or at least providing a handoff for assistance.




Synopsis: A Seattle TRACON Controller reported their airspace is unsafe due to the amount of unidentified VFR traffic allowed to fly in the same airspace as IFR aircraft conducting instrument approaches to several different airports in their airspace.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to work on a CRJ-700 aircraft that was scheduled for overnight maintenance. I performed a Visual Inspection of the System Number 1 and Number 2 Hydraulic Accumulators and found that they required removal for end cap Non-Destructive Testing (NDT). During Removal and Reinstallation (R/R); I used shop rags to absorb the hydraulic fluid that normally leaks when this task is performed. When finished I did a thorough inspection for tools and materials. All appeared cleared. I asked a Mechanic Y to inspect the Aft Bay before the 311-Door was closed; to 'make sure I didn't leave anything in there.' He performed a Visual Inspection and declared it clear; he then counter-signed all my work cards.Two days later; I was called to the [Maintenance] Office and shown a picture; taken in ZZZ1 of a shop rag jammed in the Rudder Pulley System. I have no explanation of 'why.' Procedures were followed; other employees performed tasks in the Aft Bay. None of them carried shop rags; but they had opportunity to see a rag left behind. No one reported anything and all Performance Testing showed nothing out of the ordinary. I am not certain that I am responsible for this occurrence; but the possibility is there.


Second narrative: I; Mechanic Y; was at ZZZ Hanger having Hydraulic Accumulators One and Two special Detailed Inspection per work cards by Mechanic X. She asked me to give her a counter-signoff in the Aft Equipment Bay to finish the job. I looked up in the Aft Equipment Bay and did not see any FOD. That evening; acting Supervisor showed me a picture of a rag on one of the rudder cables on the same CRJ-700 aircraft. I talked to the Base Manager the following morning about it and that; there is a possibility that the [shop] rag was one of ours and I could have missed it when I counter-signed for the Aft Equipment Bay. The event occurred because I did not see any FOD in the Aft Equipment Bay. [Recommend] be vigilant and look in the unexpected place for FOD.


Synopsis: Two Mechanics were informed that a shop rag was found jammed in the Rudder Pulley System in the Aft Equipment Bay of a CRJ-700 aircraft after they both had signed-off for the area to be free of FOD material.