elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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 Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Previous crew wrote up the aircraft for 'Low Airflow.' The inbound Captain and F/O both stated how airflow to the cockpit was very poor on the ground and on climbout. Maintenance troubleshooting revealed a faulty left pack. We coordinated with Dispatch (Mel 21-1a 'One pack Inop. pressurized Flt.) and re-planned the flight for FL240 with additional fuel. We reviewed 'Packs Off' performance data and discussed 'Packs Off' takeoff procedures. On takeoff at 400 FT 'Right Pack' reinstatement was negligible. Pressurization was slow to nonexistent due to low airflow and the cabin was climbing off schedule. Shortly thereafter the 'Pressurization Flow' Light came on. The outflow valve had moved to fully closed with the cabin still climbing off schedule. We followed the QRH Procedures; declared an 'Emergency' and immediately brought the plane back to land. The Captain accomplished a smooth and uneventful overweight landing.




Synopsis: MD82 First Officer reports being dispatched with one pack inoperative and discovering after takeoff that the remaining pack is also faulty. Flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon receiving the aircraft in ZZZ the inbound Captain had mentioned to my First Officer that ENG 1 had a fan blade being monitored by Maintenance and that it was on a special tracking system. I had looked through the logbook and had not seen such write up from Maintenance so I was a bit confused on what the First Officer had been telling me. We proceeded to fly our ZZZ - ZZZ1 - ZZZ round trip. On our return to ZZZ I had noticed that the ENG 1 HP Vibrations were trending higher than the ENG 2 HP vibrations but were still in the green range; However; we started noticing a slight abnormal vibration coming from the left side of the aircraft while in cruise. Upon landing in ZZZ and configuring for standard taxi into the gate I advised my First Officer to shut down ENG 1; when he commenced the ENG 1 shutdown we both felt the ENG abnormally vibrate and slightly shake the left side of the aircraft; at that point I figured something wasn't normal. Once we reached the gate I elected to do the walk around and discovered one of the fan blades had an abnormal shape/dent in it. I then contacted Maintenance to chat about this monitoring system that the previous Captain had mentioned to my First Officer when we received the aircraft; they had no documentation of it. I then proceeded to write up the fan blade to have Maintenance further inspect it.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported abnormal engine vibrations in flight and while taxiing were due to a previously reported damaged fan blade that maintenance had not documented.
Date: 201510
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E A90
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Descending on the ROBUC1 Arrival we were approaching the JOODY intersection. We had previously been given a descend via clearance runway 4R. When we were switched over to approach control; he told us to intercept the localizer; I believe his exact phrase was 'intercept the localizer when able; but comply with the altitude restrictions'. I then went to the legs page on the FMS and brought WINNI intersection to the top and extended the course off of WINNI 036. I selected LNAV after confirming with the Captain before executing anything. I had the captain confirm we were still cleared to 6;000 feet. ATC said yes; we were cleared to 6;000 feet but to comply with altitude restrictions after intercepting the localizer; I started to wonder about what altitude restrictions he was talking about. We were cleared to 6;000 feet; and we were established on the localizer; not the arrival. We were no longer on the arrival; but established on the localizer. The only altitude restrictions were WINNI at 4;000 feet and we were cleared to 6;000 feet. I then thought maybe he wanted us to track the localizer but meet the Arrival altitude restrictions. That's not possible; but I went to the fix page and put SOFEE intersection in the FMC. We were tracking right over the top and were 9;000 feet or above. I confirmed with the Captain that he agreed with what we were doing. He said yes. ATC then switched us to a different frequency. Captain checked in and I believe stated we were on the localizer and descending to 6;000 feet. ATC gave us a acknowledgement of our check in. I don't believe he said anything about complying with altitudes or questioned us about being on the localizer; instead of the arrival Later we were given clearance for 4;000 feet and then given clearance for the ILS to 4R. Performed and normal approach and landing to 4R.  Later looking at the arrival and the approach they are about identical in their track. If they weren't identical then how did ATC expect us to intercept the localizer. The arrival says we will get radar vectors after GOSHI. ATC did not give us anything other than 'intercept localizer';.  He told us that when we were headed to JOODY. The controller should have stated when to intercept; on current heading; after GOSHI or after he gave us radar vectors.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer on the ROBUC1 RNAV arrival to BOS is cleared to 6;000 feet and to intercept the Runway 4R localizer when able but comply with the altitude restrictions. This does not make sense to the reporter and is not clarified prior to landing.
Date: 202007
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: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Non-rev seated in X3 came on board with his mask down to his chin; not covering his nose and mouth. Waited several minutes once he took his seat to see if he would place mask over his mouth and nose and he didn't. I then proceed to go over to him after making the mask policy announcement and state for him to put his mask up covering his nose and mouth. He does for the time being. Once I start my service; I notice his mask is not covering his nose. He didn't eat or drink anything throughout the entire flight. I feel as flight attendants we have enough to do in policing rev passengers and shouldn't have to police for passengers who work for the company and understand the mask policy and not want to comply. Employees trying to get away with not complying with the policy. It's getting out of hand.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a non-revenue passenger was not wearing a face mask and had to be told to comply with the policy.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after departure; I was notified by the flight attendant that a leakage from the right wing was observed by one of the passengers. Upon a brief inspection from the cabin; I determined that we had a significant fuel leak. The leak appeared to be coming between the right aileron and the outboard portion of the wing.At that point; [ATC was advised] due to the fact I had no idea what the cause of the leak was. We turned around and landed uneventfully; where we were met by emergency personal.




Synopsis: GIV Captain reported returning to departure airport after a passenger noticed fluid leaking from the right wing.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While on a Biennial Flight review; the engine lost all power and we were forced to land on a county road. We were approximately 1500 ft. AGL when the engine lost power. We found a paved county road and landed safely.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported engine failure which resulted in a safe forced landing.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Being vectored for right traffic LAX Runway 24R; on downwind leg; we were in and out of a cloud layer that was ragged from approximately 4;000 FT to 7;000 FT. While still on downwind; the Controller pointed out traffic that would precede us; but the traffic would be landing 24L and we would land 24R. We stated that we were IMC and could not make visual contact. I was vigilant of TCAS targets; but there was no obvious target that we were following. We were vectored to a base leg and given a descent. At that point; the Controller again pointed out B767 traffic and that the traffic was for 24L and we would land 24R. We had the airport clearly in sight and I had an aircraft in sight that seemed to match the position we were given for our traffic. Checking both visually and on TCAS; I saw no other aircraft in the same general area that we could possibly be following. The traffic was significantly closer to the airport than we were and was on final. We were still on base and I saw no other traffic. I told the First Officer 'airport in sight; traffic in sight'. He made the same call to ATC and we were given a final heading to intercept the Runway 24R localizer and were cleared for the visual approach. We captured the localizer with no overshoot; captured the glide slope and started a normal; even somewhat early; configuration and speed reduction sequence. At somewhere slightly below 2;000 FT; TCAS gave a 'MONITOR VERTICAL SPEED' RA. I disconnected the autopilot and swallowed the descent. At that point; I saw the B767; which was on final for Runway 24L; ahead of and lower than us; flying a parallel course. At about the same time; LAX Tower instructed us to not pass the B767. I slowed to final approach speed; heard 'CLEAR OF CONFLICT' and regained the Runway 24R glide slope. Separation was very adequate by this point; with the B767 significantly out in front of us and for the parallel runway. We were able to resolve the conflict with minimal maneuvering. I do not believe that this was the aircraft that I originally called in sight and I did not see this aircraft on our TCAS prior to receiving the RA.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air Carrier inbound to LAX for a Visual Approach to Runway 24R sighted the wrong aircraft with respect to sequence. Separation was not compromised.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Numerous aircraft deviated between the complexes due to weather. Aircraft X was given direct to LNDIZ prior to entering the CKB sector. CKB initiated a hand off on Aircraft X to the MOR/BRY sector in ZDC. As the aircraft neared the boundary; the 'controller' from ZDC called on the shout line to tell us to put Aircraft X over HVQ because 'his supervisor didn't want the aircraft in their center'. I asked if he could override the supervisor in this instance and he replied in the negative. I informed the R side of the situation and he turned the aircraft away from ZDC airspace. We coordinated with ZID that Aircraft X would be on the heading that they would see during the hand off initiation and that we would turn him back to LNDIZ at the boundary when he was clear of ZDC's airspace. I made a point out to the MOR/BRY sector and mysteriously a point out on the very same aircraft was fine with them and promptly approved. Moments later; Aircraft X needed to deviate for weather. The deviation turn took him back toward the original flight path that ZDC was adamantly against him following in the first place.It is not uncommon for controllers from ZDC to refuse flights from ZOB. It seems that most of the time they do so is because they are spacing and don't want the extra aircraft. It happens even when weather is involved. They can't take a hand off on aircraft routed through their airspace; but have no problem taking a point out for some odd reason. Its one thing to be lazy when the skies are clear; but quite another when weather deviations are involved. We are here to provide a service; but that doesn't seem to apply to ZDC. We've actually had pilots on frequency admit that they file routes that avoid ZDC airspace because of how bad they are. When ZDC doesn't play ball with the centers around or the pilots that they 'serve'; they run the risk of creating traffic saturation in airspace that surrounds them. That could lead to very risky safety issues.




Synopsis: ZOB Center Controller reported ZDC Center did not want to take an aircraft due to weather; so they rerouted it into ZID Center's airspace.  Aircraft deviated for weather and went on original routing through ZDC Center's airspace.
Date: 201505
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During our preflight; I determined the assigned aircraft as 'unable to operate'.' A320 was replaced with another A320 aircraft. After opening the CCS Sabre Flight Plan Manager; I selected the briefing tab; checked all applicable selections; and the selected 'Print All.' The Sabre Briefing Package presented was labeled Flight XXX; Release 03. The Briefing Package contained an OFP now listing the newly assigned aircraft. However; the Sabre Briefing Package contained the DIL and log for Aircraft XXX (the previously assigned aircraft). Additionally; Release 03 for Flight XXX now included an alternate when before there was none. The Sabre Briefing Package; Release 03 did not include the weather and NOTAM information for this alternate airport. This is a reoccurring problem which has been reported several times before. I myself have submitted several reports identifying this very problem with the Sabre Flight Planning Program. Please ensure that: 1) Pilots are notified that their Sabre Flight Plan Briefing Packages may be omitting regulatory required documentation.2) Please correct this reoccurring problem with Sabre not updating the flight planning package according to changes in the flight planning process.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain noted that when his flight release is revised; his air carrier's revised SABRE flight plan briefing packages do not always include the alternate's weather and NOTAM information.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RKS.Airport, WY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After we started engines we did a Taxi Check. We talked with the deice truck to see where they wanted us to park for deice. It was still dark and there was frost on the wings. I gave the ramp agent the thumbs up that we were ready to taxi. Ramp agent gave me the chocks out signal which I had forgotten to give so I returned the chocks out signal to them. The agent then started backing up away from the aircraft with their arms held out in front of them. I released the brake and started to roll forward for the taxi. I then saw a [ramp agent] run in front of the plane with the chocks in their hands. I did not know that ramp agent was down there and had gotten stuck on the opposite side of the plane (Taxiway side) after pulling the chocks. I put the brakes on until ramp agent cleared. After that we taxied to the deice location; where the ramp agent (guessing ramp manager) let me know that I just about ran over the [ramp agent] doing chocks. I told them that I had seen [the ramp agent] and that it scared me too. I also told them that I thought the agent was giving me a taxi forward signal.Slow down. Think about the people around the aircraft. It would help to have the wands held in the x position so that there is a definite stop signal. However the way their wands were held is also a hold position signal. I do find that that same signal is also used as a line up here signal by many ramp agents and so I misinterpreted it as them wanting me to go that way. I also think it would help to have the chocks turned so that the ramp agent removing them would be on the terminal side of the aircraft giving the agent an out in that situation.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported narrowly missing a ramp employee when taxi was begun before the signal was given.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were beginning to descend from our cruise at 2;500 ft. when Aircraft Y descended on top of us from head on. I hadn't seen the airplane until it filled my windshield. We quickly put Aircraft X into a descending left hand turn because Aircraft Y was slightly to the right side of our aircraft. The plane did not appear to have seen us because they didn't make an effort to turn or climb. It is not uncommon for [university] airplanes to appear completely clueless about whats going on around them. I believe the main cause of the issue was pilot traffic scanning; and maintaining focus outside the cockpit while flying visually. We did not have an ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) transponder on board so if they were relying on their ADS-B traffic system to show where we were; then it would not have worked. I don't know why I hadn't found it until as late as it was because I was actively scanning for traffic; and the student I was flying with is a seasoned aviation professional as well. I have already had a conversation with our flight school about staying aware when we are out flying; and will further remind everyone at our next staff meeting.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a NMAC resulted in taking evasive action.