elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation III; VI; VII (C650)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The plate profile is confusing as it appears to direct a descent when established to cross the VOR at or above 1;300 feet and the plan view conflicts or is easily misread. The Controller [stated this] is a common mistake on this [VOR Runway 10] approach. The Controller indicated that this issue has been reported on numerous occasions.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a confusing depiction of a crossing restriction on the VOR Runway 10 approach plate for CLL airport.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GSP.Airport, SC
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: TOWER BLINDS AND TOWER PESTS: The blinds in the Tower are inadequate! They do not properly block the strong rays of the sun; especially at sunrise and sunset. Flies get caught in between the blinds and the window pane and struggle relentlessly causing a symphony of very distracting and high pitches buzzing. If it were just a few flies; the noise would be bearable. But it's not. It's hundreds; and I know this because I (and some of my co-workers) take out the time when there is no traffic to vacuum the sills; stairs; floors and other horizontal surfaces their little bodies land on in our Tower. Additionally; on one day my Supervisor came in early; just to scrape flies off of our pitiful blinds. And then he graciously vacuumed them up. After he left; I sprayed the remaining flies with bug killer. Our pest problem has been addressed multiple times since I have been here at this facility. Fly paper doesn't work effectively anymore. Our Tower has been 'bug bombed'; the ceiling has been filled in with foam at least twice. But the problem is the structure! Our roof needs to be redone. We need new blinds. Why do some of [us] have to wear sunglasses in our Tower with closed blinds?  We shouldn't. We shouldn't have to chase and kill bugs. No one in the regional offices has to deal with these situations!  Why should ATC; the bread your butter supports have to deal with this too? New roof and new blinds for the Tower.




Synopsis: GSP Controller voiced concern regarding the tower blinds; claiming they are inadequate and also indicted the fly problem is distracting and needs to remedied.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Briefed relief crew (shift change) that we received Oceanic CPDLC [Controller-pilot data link communication] to cross ZZZZZ at FL360. [ATC] would not let us climb to FL360 to comply with Oceanic. Sent message to Oceanic and they said no worries; that they would climb us after ZZZZZ. I left cockpit to go on break; upon returning from break; First Officers told me that they received a CPDLC message to climb to FL360 but called Oceanic to confirm and they said to maintain FL320. First Officers then contacted Oceanic because he was the one generating the CPDLC messages and he said to maintain FL320.




Synopsis: B-777 Captain reported clearance error between CPDLC Data Link Clearance and sector ATC clearance during Oceanic crossing.
Date: 201510
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a death on our flight. The coach galley was secured for landing. The passenger was secured on the back galley floor. FA's B; C; and D positioned themselves to be safe and secure and continued CPR until we landed and the paramedics arrived. Medlink was contacted. It was a death that required performing CPR until we landed and the paramedics met the flight. No errors.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant experienced a passenger heart attack in flight which required three other flight attendants to preform CPR through landing and taxi to the gate.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A Mooney Allegro was cleared to land on Runway 29R. I observed the aircraft on about a 3/4 mile final and checked to see that the gear was down. I looked down to observe my wind instruments and gave the pilot a wind check; then scanned my strip bay and R-ACD. When I looked at the final again I couldn't find the Allegro in the ground clutter that is a visual background for that final from the point of view of the Tower. I expected the aircraft to be on very short final approaching the runway threshold; but I couldn't find it there. Then I realized that the aircraft was rolling out on Taxiway A. I couldn't tell whether he landed and exited the runway very early; or landed on the taxiway. There were no other aircraft or vehicles moving on the airfield at the time so no one would have been endangered if he had landed on Taxiway A. I chose not to say anything and see if the pilot said something about the landing but he didn't. In retrospect I think it would have been better to question the pilot even if I risked offending him; just in case he had landed on the taxiway. Then we would have had the opportunity to educate him on paying closer attention to the movement area markings on final. I don't have any recommendations but the view of the final for Runway 29R from our new Tower has been an ongoing issue for all of us.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a possible taxiway landing event listing the visibility form the new Tower as problematic.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Climbing out of LAX on the FIXIT 2 RNAV Departure we were instructed to comply with the restrictions on the SID and contact ZLA. The restriction at FIXIT is to cross above 12;000 FT and speed not to exceed 290 KTS. Upon reaching MUELR; ZLA assigned us a heading. Our speed at this time was 290 KTS approximately 7.1 miles from FIXIT; and complying with the restrictions. Center asked us our speed and told us we were supposed to be at 250 KTS. I brought it to his attention that SOCAL instructed us to comply with the restrictions on the departure. The flight proceeded without any further incident.


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


Synopsis: While departing LAX on the FIXIT 2 RNAV; SOCAL Departure cleared a CRJ900 to contact ZLA and comply with restrictions; which included 290 KTS. Switching to ZLA; they were asked their speed and told to slow to 250 KTS; a previous restriction.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
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 In Charge
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We experienced an air quality [issue] in-flight. Odor detected on our flight. Smelled like oil; a smell like WD 40 detected in aft galley area and also detected throughout the cabin.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a fume event during flight throughout the passenger cabin.
Date: 201503
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower CYYC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When getting the paperwork I had read the Ops alert pertaining to the possibility of receiving a 'TOO LOW TERRAIN' when landing 35R. We descended into CYYC via the EBGAL 3 arrival landing runway 35R. Traffic was departing 35L. The latest weather had clear skies and visibility of 40 SM. I had seen the airport when we were more than 25+ miles away. We had done the approach descent checklist previously and had completed the approach checklist properly. The Captain had identified the localizer for 35R and I verified it myself. We were cleared for the approach. I started the approach with autopilot on; after being established on the localizer and descending towards the runway; approach handed us over to Tower. I always check to make sure the localizer and the magenta line match up; they did match up correctly on 35R. Captain checked in with Tower and they cleared us to land 35R. Tower reported winds at 260/20G25. After turning the autopilot off; I was hand flying a stabilized approach. It seems at approximately 75 feet AGL; we received a 'TOO LOW TERRAIN' EGPWS ALERT. The ops alert was the first thing that I thought of. I continued the approach to a safe landing on 35R. I continued the approach to landing because I could positively identify our location; verify there were no obstacle or terrain hazards; and was certain we were in the correct landing configuration (We had done the before landing checklist at the appropriate time). 1. The visibility was unlimited and I saw the airport many miles out.2. I have flown into CYYC several times and was 100 percent certain that we were lined up with 35R. I could see 35L. 3. I intercepted the localizer with LNAV. 4. I checked to make sure the localizer was centered on the aircraft; which it was. I verified our heading was correct for the landing runway. 5. We had completed the approach checklist and identified the localizer for 35R.




Synopsis: B737 FO on an ILS approach to RWY 35R at CYYC reported ignoring a GPWS terrain alert because the runway was in sight and an Ops bulletin warned of possible false GPWS warnings on that approach.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Wing Leading Edge
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: On Date I was assigned a routine task card for Aircraft X task card which [to] INSPECT ALL LEADING EDGE PANELS FOR SECURITY.  I inspected all wing leading edge panels for loose and missing fasteners; and replaced 6 standard screws found in right hand leading edge panels; 2 fasteners [type 1]; 1 fastener; [type 2] 3 fasteners. All on the right hand wing. Left hand wing leading edge panels all fasteners were secure. I installed IAW SRM XX-XX-XX (Fastener installation in Composite structure - Installation references general Data.I received a phone call from Company compliance stating I did not comply with the paperwork correctly with an incorrect sign off. During the phone call [they] stated ZZZ failed to perform a bonding check on the wings leading edges. After review I have determined that I complied with the task card as stated correctly and that Maintenance Control put the wrong information they wanted to achieve on the write up. There was absolutely nothing on the task card stating a reference to use or perform a bonding check as their issue.Maintenance Control could be more clear on the actual work needed to be performed.




Synopsis: Technician reported that during scheduled maintenance; he replaced numerous fasteners on the right-hand wing leading edge access panels and was asked about compliance issues.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying for a normal departure from ZZZ. Takeoff was normal; but just after the Pilot Monitoring called acceleration altitude we received the EICAS: BAGGAGE DOOR OPEN. We finished the climb flow; contacted ATC for delay vectors; and then I took over the radios as the Pilot Monitoring began the QRH. As we accomplished the QRH we noted the cabin altitude was climbing rapidly and determined we would return to ZZZ. We accomplished our remaining checklists and set up for an uneventful approach and landing. After we returned to the gate one of the ramp crew informed us he had seen that the baggage door 'didn't look right' and he had cycled the latch and closed the door again. We called Maintenance who found no defects. When Maintenance was finished; we continued our flight uneventfully. It may be beneficial to train ramp crews not to touch or interfere with a door until instructed in a return to gate or return to field scenario. After talking with Maintenance we both agreed it would have been much easier to determine the cause if Maintenance would have been able to see the door before it was cycled.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain flying EMB-XRJ aircraft reported Baggage Door Open inflight.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Clearance issued by Ground Control after pushback from Gate was 'Taxi south on G; hold short of J1 for flow to ZZZ.' After a long inspection of the TPA 10-9 Page it became apparent that it is labeled erroneously. The 10-9 has the inner taxiway on the ramp labeled as A. All the signage on the airport and ATC have it as Taxiway G.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the TPA airport inner part of Taxiway G on the ramp is mislabeled as Taxiway A on the 10-9 page.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Accessory Gearbox
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Lead Mechanic of the gearbox change at ZZZ on an MD-80 aircraft #2 engine. On a final inspection; the Inspector and I missed an oil line that was not safetied; or the bolts were not installed. The engine run-up and leak check was good. The aircraft flew for nine flights before the line leaked oil. We drove our shop truck to and from ZZZ. It's approximately a six-hour drive each way.


Second narrative: During [engine] gearbox installation; Mechanic A [(there were four mechanics total)] did not install the bolts to the oil return line to the gearbox. I suggested to him; not to forget to install the bolts and continued with the installation of the fuel pump and Controller. Mechanic A did not install the bolts; nor did he advise any of the other mechanics or Lead Mechanic that he left these bolts out. The leak check on [engine] run-up was OK; no leaks were apparent. Lead Mechanic and Inspectors [approved] the engine gearbox [change]; no leaks were found.


Synopsis: A Lead Mechanic and two other mechanics report on their involvement with a N2 gearbox change and oil return line installation on a Pratt-Whitney JT8D engine at the #2 engine position. The MD-80 aircraft flew nine flights before the return line leaked oil.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LZU.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LZU
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was cleared to taxi from the north to Runway 25 at Taxiway W (full length) via Taxiway D; and to hold short of Runway 25. I was new to this airport and the clearance across a runway to the taxiway on the other side was new for me; but I figured it out. As I approached Runway 25; the hold short markers on the ground were very faded and I did not see them; but I should have noted the above ground markers on the side of the taxiway. I thought for a minute that Runway 25 that I was approaching was actually a taxiway because I did not see the painted hold short line. However; I stopped short of Runway 25 when I noticed the Runway 25-7 marker; but I was past the hold short line. I called Ground and he told me I had passed the hold short line; and then cleared me across Runway 25 and on my way. It was a combination of an unfamiliar airport; unusual (to me) taxi clearance; and faded hold short marks on the taxiway. I did not enter Runway 25 but I did pass the hold short line. There was no near miss with any other aircraft; and none were on or near the runway. I need to be sure of the taxi instructions especially at an unfamiliar airport. It would help to have the hold short lines repainted; but I should have seen the signs by the side of the taxiway. I think it's just that I'm used to seeing both; and when one is not present or evident; I don't look for the other.




Synopsis: A transient pilot was cleared to LZU Runway 25 via Taxiway D; hold short at W; but because of faded hold short lines he taxied beyond the hold line.