elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were pushing back and the Ground Crew was using a non tow-bar type tug. It's difficult to see the tug from the cockpit. We were cleared to start engines and we started both. We were not aligned with the taxi line when the Pushback Crew paused movement. We only heard static from the Ground Crew over the intercom. The Captain never stated; 'parking brake set.' Again; we were not aligned with the taxi line so as we began rolling forward; it looked like we were being pulled forward. Again; this type of tug is not very visible; however I looked right and saw the tug was backing away and I immediately notified the CA (Captain); who applied brakes immediately and stopped the aircraft. We still barely managed to communicate with the Ground Coordinator because of radio static but he did remove the steering bypass pin and we continued with operations.The Ground Crew needs to verify that their headsets are working properly. Not being able to hear them very well with all the static is partially responsible for the breakdown In communication. I also have an expectation that the tug driver will line the aircraft up on the taxi line; which did not happen here and so we didn't immediately notice that the aircraft was rolling forward on its own.




Synopsis: First Officer reported problems communicating with ground crew during a pushback.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During boarding time Passenger X boarded without face covering. I approached him and politely requested he comply. He ignored me and proceeded going down the aisle. He began placing his two roller bags in the overhead bin. I waited; he sat and settled in his seat and again I requested he comply and told him he needed to put his face covering; this time he did and quickly slid it down to his chin and began making a phone call. I approached him and told him he needed to wear it properly. At that time I saw another passenger who was wearing it under his chin as well. I then proceeded to make a PA announcement regarding the requirements of face coverings. FA B approach both gentleman and requested they comply and asked them to wear their mask. Passenger X again refused; at that time I notified the Captain about the problem and he went ahead and made another PA covering the face covering requirements. The Captain told me to wait 2 minutes for him to comply. Gate agent was coming on board. Upon being told by the gate agent he put it on. During demo Passenger X was still talking on his phone and again removed his face cover. Again I told him to put it on and requested he place his phone in airplane mode; he ignored me. I finished the safety demo and told him to put the cell phone in airplane mode. We waited until he finished his conversation and he placed his covering and we began the taxing for takeoff. He put his phone down; upon me sitting in my jump seat he began writing and using his browser. As he saw me looking at him he began playing with his covering putting it on and taking off.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger did not comply with face mask policy.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Landing at ZZZ on Runway XX in Cessna Skylane; a strong gust of wind in excess of 20 knots crosswind component almost flipped the airplane. Full left aileron and right rudder kept the airplane from running off the runway or flipping. But there was a propeller strike as the plane came down on the right main then hard on the nose gear. The nose tire developed a leak and went flat over 15 minutes. The plane taxied back to the FBO without much vibration from the propeller and no abnormal engine sounds. [Current weather] information reported 11 knots from 060 and the Tower reported winds had started gusting and were erratic. I had 20 degrees of flaps in and manifold pressure of 12 inches on touchdown. On approach; the plane tracked the centerline of the runway with left aileron and rudder. The crab component was corrected at touch down before crossing Runway XY. With only a light touch the plane went airborne again a few feet only as it crossed [Runway] XY. Then bounced; started to flip with a large gust of wind. There was just enough control authority to prevent the wing from touching the runway but not enough to prevent the propeller strike. No damage was done to the air-frame and the engine continued to run smoothly. No injuries occurred.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported that a strong gust of wind during touchdown nearly flipped the airplane. The pilot regained aircraft control and the aircraft sustained minor damage. No injuries occurred.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Left engine failure on Aircraft X. Felt/Heard a loud BOOM/BANG. Observed a yaw to the left; airspeed was decreasing rapidly; since we were still in a climb.Unknown cause of Left (#1) engine Failure during Climb.I said: 'we just lost the left engine. You need to declare MAYDAY with center and let them know we are an emergency airplane; single engine. [First Officer (FO)] did just that. Center asked if we wanted to return to ZZZ? I said to [FO]: NO; we are only about 20 miles North East of ZZZ1. Tell them we want to land in ZZZ1. We were given a clearance lower; and a turn to ZZZ1. We ran the QRC/QRH for Engine Failure. Secured the left Engine; and landed Nearest Suitable: ZZZ1.




Synopsis: The Captain of an Embraer 145 reported that an engine failed during climb.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [BNA] ILS 20L. Flight and majority of approach uneventful. We broke out of the clouds at about 700 feet on the approach. At the 500 feet call out; I observed a rather large party balloon along our flight path. I disconnected the auto pilot and maneuvered to the right to avoid hitting it. This maneuver was followed by a go-around due to the approach not being stabilized. I called for the go-around then we followed the missed approach. Individuals on the ground should find a better way to secure their party balloons.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported executing a go-around from their approach to BNA after spotting a party balloon on their flight path at about 500 feet AGL.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Weather; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While departing TEB on a charter the First Officer and I were reviewing the departure procedures and noise abatement procedures for our runway when I made an error in my take off briefing. We were assigned the RUDDY 4 RNAV departure that requires you to cross a fix at 1;500 FT then continue the climb to 2;000 FT. While at the terminal I briefed a climb to 2;000 FT and a crossing restriction of making sure we cross the restriction at or above 1;500 FT. Upon taxi out we were held on the ground for delays and spent our time going over an ATC reroute as well as making sure the weather was suitable when departing 24. After takeoff I continued my climb to 2;000 FT too early because I was concentrating on weather cells that lined the departure. ATC told us that we should be at 1;500 and by that time it was too late to fix our mistake. They said nothing else; and the First Officer and I realized what we had done. I was in an unfamiliar airport on a charter that had complicated noise procedures combined with weather and the standard difficulties of a charter. I briefed a chart incorrectly and then went on to concentrate on the weather and route planning without reviewing it except just before takeoff. It was my mistake in the initial briefing that led me to think I was correct in my climb to 2;000 FT.


Second narrative: With better CRM; and a focus put on looking for any possible areas that we could get tricked up by an unfamilair departure procedure. I believe that this would have never happened. I will be paying closer attention to the verbage in the departure procedures to make sure that nothing like this will ever happen again. Especially at airports that we do not do normal opperations.


Synopsis: An ERJ flight crew on the TEB RUUDY 4 climbed directly to 2;000 FT before WENTZ because the Captain was task saturated with the unfamiliar departure and weather avoidance.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PAO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D PAO
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Local; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While working the tower cab combined; Moffett Tower called to cancel downwind extensions to the amphitheater with no reason given. I had two aircraft flying the local VFR traffic pattern and made the advisory call that base turns needed to be kept with 1.5NM of Palo Alto (which is all the airspace PAO is designated for on final to Runway 31). Aircraft X was ahead of Aircraft Y in the pattern and both were cleared for the option on Runway 31. Aircraft X landed and rolled out to the end of Runway 31. Aircraft Y who turned base tightly behind Aircraft X to stay inside the PAO Class D had to go around because the traffic would not likely have been clear of the runway prior to them crossing the runway threshold. Palo Alto has significantly more operations than Moffett field does and needs more airspace on final for Runway 31. Moffett regularly denies or takes away airspace based on their judgment on if they believe Palo Alto needs it (not based on operational needs at Moffett). The airspace should be redistributed to reflect current state of traffic at each. Palo Alto should be able to have the airspace to a 3NM final for Runway 31. It would be fair to not have a full 3NM circle on the NE side of the PAO delta as to protect the extended centerline of NUQ 32L/ 14R. But; that should still allow PAO to have a right traffic pattern to Runway 31 to a 3NM final without conflicting with Moffett traffic. A 3NM ring on the south side of Palo Alto to a 3 NM final would likely not result in any impact to the operations at Moffett. Such a redesign would significantly reduce required coordination and allow both facilities to safely work traffic around each other efficiently.




Synopsis: PAO Tower Controller reported problems associated with the close proximity of Moffett Tower airspace.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight crew detected foul odor before boarding. Captain was notified; we all deplaned; Maintenance was called. 9 hour delay while filters were replaced.


Second narrative: Prior to boarding at XA:30 on Date in ZZZ on Aircraft X a strong cabin odor throughout the cabin. 9 Hour delay upon landing in ZZZ1 at XM:30 cabin odor came back. [Flight Attendant suggested to] take the plane out of service and fix the issue. Possibly figure out why it's happening more often.


Synopsis: A320 Captain and flight attendants reported a fume event prior to boarding. Flight was delayed for 9 hours while maintenance corrected the fume issue.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: GEELA RNAV APPROACH to PHX has incorrect altitude restrictions programmed for the GEELA waypoint. FMGC reflects a crossing restriction of 16;000 feet or above at GEELA. Correct altitude restriction is 16;000 feet or below. You must cross lower than 16;000 feet to make the next restriction on the STAR of 10;000 feet and 210 knots. If you descend on this RNAV Arrival in a Managed Descent mode; the FMGC can not comply with the altitude restrictions after GEELA.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reports that the FMGC in his aircraft depicts the GEELA crossing restriction on the GEELA 6 into PHX as 16000 or above when it should show at or below.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: First let me say our aircraft is equipped with Collins Pro Line 21 avionics. Now; our clearance was to climb via the ELANR THREE SID; which we were; and had the fix part of the SID displayed on the MFD; now keep in mind that we can't display the full chart without scrolling from top to bottom and side to side; and our speed restriction of 250 knots until advised by ATC was not in our view unless we scrolled to that part of the page or kept the cursor over that part of the plate. This plate; as well as other SIDS; at no time is completely visible at any magnification level on our MFD's; therefore the speed restriction of 250 knots until advised; totally slipped my mind. I believe Collins needs to address this issue by showing this restriction somewhere on the MFD at all times. We were scolded by ATC for something that we were totally unaware of. Another problem; I believe; is that there are too many different speed restrictions and none are consistent with one another; for instance; we fly out of the CLT area a lot and most of their SIDS are speed restricted to 280 until advised by ATC. Why not have a standard speed of 250 until advised on these SIDS.  Some of them are very complex and require attention to detail and; if speed is so critical; it needs to be shown at all times or at least made consistent on all SIDS.




Synopsis: The Captain of a CE-560XL; chastised by Chicago TRACON for not maintaining 250 knots until advised as directed by the ELANR SID by which he was cleared; cited the inability of the aircraft's MFD to display the entire SID without both vertical and horizontal scrolling as a contributing factor to his failure to be aware of the restriction.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the climb segment of an IFR flight; the cabin suddenly loss of pressure from FL340. I initiated an emergency descent to 10;000 ft simultaneously notifying ATC of the situation. The oxygen masked were donned immediately and worn until 10;000 ft. The remaining portions of the flight were continued without incident. The landing was uneventful at the destination airport.




Synopsis: Citation II Captain reported a sudden loss of cabin pressure at FL340.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the coffee pot leaked; Flight Attendant reported a burning like smell from around the forward oven. No smoke or fumes. Smell stopped after they turned the oven off. We were a few minutes from starting our descent. Since there was no smoke or fumes and the odor stopped I elected to continue with a normal descent and landing. I concluded it was most likely due to the excessive leak from the coffee maker.




Synopsis: Embraer E175 Captain reported a coffee marker leaking into an oven causing a burning smell.