elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
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; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X; entered aircraft with mask below his nose.  I requested that he pull it up before boarding.  He complied and sat.  Several times throughout the flight I walked cabin to collect trash and reminded many people to pull up mask over nose.  I asked Passenger X once and he complied.  The next time I asked; he informed me 'I can't breathe.'I told him I was sorry but he agreed to our terms of face masks when he checked in.  He pulled mask up.  I did another trash run and mask was lowered again.  I reminded him of policy.  Instead of pulling it up; he requested to see the policy in writing.  He then spoke with other FA and said he was being singled out because of his tattoos.   She told him she had seen me as I had reminded several others.  She said further non-compliance could result in a ban on flying.I called Captain and asked to make the nose and mouth announcement.  Captain did.  I went back to show him the verbiage which explicitly spells out the policy.  I asked him if he would please comply.  He said 'I am complying; #%$^!'  His nostrils were clearly visible.  I left and called Captain; informing them of the non-compliance.  Captain confirmed and would notify the ground agents to meet the plane.Passenger Y talked to other FA and said I was harassing Passenger X.  He said others around him felt uncomfortable.  I said we needed people to comply with safety rules.  He said I hadn't said anything to a nearby woman when her mask was off; and I tried to explain it was because she was still eating and drinking.  But he was convinced I was discriminating in my enforcement.Make an announcement at boarding gate that explicitly tells people they can be banned for failure to comply with nose and mouth covered rule.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported a passenger was non-complaint with face mask policy during the flight.
Date: 201902
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll at approximately 90-100 kts; a bird struck the radome and right side of the aircraft before being ingested by the #2 engine. A rejected takeoff was initiated and we cleared the runway without incident. Aircraft was brought to a full stop after exiting the runway and communications with the flight attendants and passengers took place as well a thorough review of the aircraft systems and completion of appropriate check lists. Aircraft returned to gate without further incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to bird strike and engine ingestion.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AHN.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation III; VI; VII (C650)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower AHN
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: 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: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On preflight we noted a shortened runway due to a displaced threshold. My copilot called airport and received additional information on construction and NOTAM's we already had received during preflight. Upon arrival we were asked if we were aware of the shortened runway and copilot replied with an affirmative. We touched down and made a normal landing and were told we had landed inside the displaced threshold. The copilot and myself never saw any indicators that a pilot normally looks for on a displaced threshold. There were no obvious markers leading to where the threshold starts. As a crew we feel we did everything to prepare for the flight and never saw exactly where the threshold began or anything to lead to it. The only obvious thing on the runway was a tarp over the numbers. We feel thresholds need to be marked clearly so high performance jets can have a clear aiming point.

Callback: The reporter state that the only indication of the location of the displaced threshold were two traffic cones placed on either side of the runway.



Synopsis: CE650 Captain reports being aware of a NOTAM for AHN creating a 1;500 foot displaced threshold for Runway 27. The reporter is informed after landing that he touched down in the displaced threshold. Nonstandard displaced threshold markings were cited as the cause.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While strapped into my 3L jumpseat and sitting on tarmac waiting for our turn to take off a sudden very strong smell of fuel/oil came into the main cabin very strong in aft part of main cabin. Many passengers started waving their arms at me and were concerned about the strong odor it was bothering them I called the Captain to inform him of the strong fuel/oil smell coming into the cabin. These incidences are happening more often and are not acceptable. Threatens the health of crew and passengers. Passengers were waving at me concerned about the fumes I had already called the Captain to inform him of the strong smell of fuel in the aft part of main cabin.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported a fume event while awaiting takeoff clearance. Multiple passengers also reported strong fumes.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate

Narrative: On taxi out received a 'Tire Press' EICAS alert. This occurred approximately 5 minutes after pushback. We were on [a] taxiway. The Captain stopped the aircraft and we ran the checklist and observed approximately 78psi on tire 7. Pressure continued to decrease to approximately 2psi. We notified Ground Control and returned to parking on ramp. All preflight indications were normal including visual inspection. Aircraft was taxied on centerline entire time. No FOD was noticed on taxiway. Crew did not feel anything unusual while taxiing. Probable FOD. Tire appeared to be cut. [I suggest] proper FOD sweep on taxiways/ramp.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported an EICAS message for low tire pressure led to a return to the gate for maintenance.
Date: 201308
Location: CVG.Airport, KY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given a descent to FL180 by ATC.  The First Officer was flying the leg.  Upon nearing FL180; our altimeters' settings flashed; indicating a need to adjust to local altimeter settings while passing through FL180.  Acknowledging that we were leveling at FL180; I left my Altimeter setting at 29.92.  The First Officer saw his altimeter setting flash; and adjusted it to the local altimeter setting of 30.14.  From the Captain's seat; I noticed we were descending through FL180.  I asked the First Officer to level off; then told him to climb back up to FL180.  He was not responsive to my comments nor took any action to remedy the situation so I stated 'my controls'; disconnected the autopilot; and climbed back to FL180.  I then asked him to reset his  altimeter to 29.92.  He did so.  I called for autopilot on and then transferred controls back to him.  We lost  somewhere around 150 FT during the incident. Contributing factors include a procedural error; lack of understanding; and perhaps a confusing altitude to level at. More experience; more understanding of procedures; and ATC avoiding the assigning of FL180.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reports being cleared to descend to FL180 with the First Officer flying. As the aircraft nears FL180 the altimeter settings begin to flash and the First Officer sets QNH of 30.14 resulting in a level off below FL180. The Captain tells the First Officer to climb back to FL180 then takes the controls when the First Officer does not respond.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Interphone System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the gate before pushback; as the A Flight Attendant was giving us the paperwork with the passenger count; we heard chimes in the flight deck. This created incredible confusion among us. As the A Flight Attendant jumped back into the cabin to get the handset to contact the C Flight Attendant my First Officer called the cabin to find out if everything was ok. At that point; no one knew who was talking to whom. The entire Crew conducted themselves in a very professional and calm way as to identify them and verify that none of us had chimed the flight deck and they did not see any emergency transpiring. At the same time; it occurred to me that it could be the ground crew. I called them on the headset and the Tug Driver answered jumping into his programmed briefing about being ready for pushback. I could not get a word thru to ask if everything was normal outside the aircraft until he was done with his routine. I asked him if he had called the flight deck [several] times in a row and he confirmed that it was him; trying to get our attention. I explained what [multiple] chimes meant and I got a very uninterested 'ohhh...K'. After pushback; I stopped the aircraft on the ramp and contacted Operations on their frequency and ask them to please instruct the Ground Crews on this very important Safety matter. To my further surprise the lady in charge explained to me very nicely; that she had no idea that [several] chimes meant anything. She said 'Oh that is very informative; thank you.' There was a moment during this event that we as a Crew had no idea if the back Flight Attendant was under distress; or if we had an outside threat such as an undetected fire but we all knew that [several] chimes meant emergency. With all due respect; I suggest we train our Ground Crews so that they know of the potential of creating an emergency that doesn't exist.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported hearing an emergency chime and was unaware of the source until questioning the ground crew.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: When the tug driver plugged his headset in to communicate for pushback from [the] gate; I could hear interference on it from what sounded like a radio broadcast of a church ceremony with singing of hymns. I asked the tug driver if he was listening to a church service and he said no; but he said there was a church down the street that broadcasts their mass and sometimes it interferes with the interphone and you can hear it (!). The interference became even worse once we were pushed back as I could hear a woman reading scripture; but the tug driver was so faint I could barely hear him and had to ask him to repeat himself. My First Officer was listening too and he confirmed what I was hearing. It went away the instant the tug driver unplugged. I've seen some strange things before; but this is definitely odd and someone should look into this.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported interference from a local church broadcast interfered with his communication with the tug driver at BOI airport.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1.5
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ramp told us to push back tail north at a 45-degree; but First Officer (FO) mentioned tail South at 45 so Ramp pushed us in the wrong direction. Ramp said to plan on a 180-degree turn to exit on the left side. The weather was horrible. I cleared off the Ground Crew and after they left we completed the Control Check. I called for the Before Takeoff Checklist but do not remember the flap setting because Ramp called and wanted us to move.  I should have slowed down. We taxied. Ground then gave us a runway change from 9L to 9R and a complicated taxi instruction. We complied with and completed the box; performance; and the departure plan briefings. As soon as I wanted to do the Before Taxi Checklist; we were cleared across 9L to Taxiway Romeo. My plan was to cross the runway and complete the Before Taxi Checklist on the other side. As I crossed the runway; I did a quick throttle burst on the number one engine and to MY surprise I got a warning horn. We set the brakes on Romeo; completed the Before Taxi Checklist; and set the flaps from 0 to position 5. This has never happened to me in [many] years.Do not let anyone distract you after the control check and complete the Before Taxi Checklist in a very deliberate manner.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain discovers late in the taxi for takeoff that the flaps have not been set and a checklist has not been run; due to distractions at a very busy airport.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DET.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DET
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We taxied out from the FBO via our issued ATC clearance.  The clearance was taxi to  Runway 33 via A Taxiway and cross Runway 25.  As we taxied across Runway 25 I saw a sign that said  approach for Runway 33 and I believed that I saw hold short lines.  At this point I told my PIC that he was approaching the hold short lines for Runway 33; the PIC replied that those where not hold short lines.  A few seconds later the PIC stopped the airplane because he started having doubts as to if we had crossed the hold short lines.  As we discussed the issue the Tower cleared us for take off.  We never saw any other hold short lines as we taxied onto the runway.  If you review the airport diagram  its difficult to see if there are any hold short lines from the point that we taxied onto the runway.   At this point we are not sure if we crossed the hold short line.  Next time I will be more aggressive in regards to stopping the airplane.




Synopsis: G200 First Officer questions whether the hold short line for Runway 33 has been crossed as the crew taxi's to that runway via Taxiway A at DET.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Facility was mid-way through a 48 hour ERAM test. Received position briefing and relieved RADAR position. Went to invoke 'pref-set' (Preferential Settings) for this sector and there were none. I had apparently overwritten Sector X 'pref-set' the night before when using an atypical sector combination. I was using the previous Controller's 'pref-set' until I could update my own with 21 plus aircraft under my control. Air Carrier Y was in the middle of a 2 gate double arrival stream. Air Carrier X was an overflight 'swimming upstream;' requested a descent clearance to FL310 from FL350. Several of the south stream aircraft had been descended to FL320 to clear traffic; now given FL300 for Air Carrier X new requested altitude. The plan was to wait for descent on Air Carrier Y until past Air Carrier X at FL350; then Air Carrier X requested lower. Air Carrier Y needed descent due to proximity to arrival gate and Air Carrier X's lower altitude. Air Carrier X was given a left turn 15 degrees for his descent and cleared to FL330 interim. Air Carrier Y was descended to FL300 then given a gate crossing clearance of FL190. When Air Carrier X was established north of traffic; cleared to FL310; the RADAR Associate updated Air Carrier X route. The route was close to Air Carrier Y; but appeared to clear; so Air Carrier X was cleared on course to preclude a further conflict with aircraft on either arrival stream. Air Carrier X passed Air Carrier Y; both aircraft descending and appeared to clear with minimum separation of 5 NM. Recommendation; take more time to establish that correct ERAM 'pref-set' is available. Using another Controller's 'pref-set' is definitely a distraction and disadvantage. It would have been more prudent to clear Air Carrier x on course 'reaching FL310'; giving more time and altitude margin to ensure separation.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a probable loss of separation event during a ERAM testing period; the Controller listed the lack of Preferential Settings ('pref-set') availability as one causal factor.
Date: 201704
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Doing a line check and noted the low state of charge (32%) and the non-Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) cord being used from the cockpit power plug.Crew member insisted he started the trip at 100% and the one leg depleted his iPad to this level. I have no reason to doubt him. I do have huge concerns that the iPad is not up to the demands we are placing on it and the rush to remove QRH's will aggravate the problem. Note that this non-OEM cord is sold as an Apple-approved device; but; it's NOT an Apple OEM part. This cord is exceptionally long and will reach completely across the cockpit.




Synopsis: B757 Check Pilot reported noticing a crew member charging his iPad using an aftermarket cord; and expressed concern about that usage and about the rapid iPad battery discharge rate.