elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying the RNAV Arrival into ZZZ; the initial Approach Controller gave us a descend via the RNAV Arrival. We requested an RNAV Z Approach with him and he said expect that. Prior to the ZZZZZ intersection the Controller gave us 'descend to 7;000 feet.' Then; we were handed off. Upon check-in with '(call sign) seven thousand)' the Controller said 'descend via the ZZZZZ 2 Arrival; expect the ILS ...' I replied with 'We can't descend via there's not a published altitude to descend to.' The Controller said there is. I replied that I believed the last published altitude to descend to was 12;000 feet at [fix] intersection; now 10-15 miles behind us; so I demanded an assignment of a numeric altitude to help clear the confusion.Approach said 'descend and maintain 5;100 feet.' He said 'I show [fix] intersection at 7;000 feet.' I replied 'Yes I see that now.' I discussed this with my First Officer and we both agreed that this is not a valid descend to altitude. I asked Approach if he had a minute for a question. He did. I told him we [wish to] clarify some information; and could he explain his thinking. The Controller said 'I see [fix] at 7;000 feet. I understand you are using Jepps plates. I'm using ICAO.' But ZZZZZ1 and ZZZZZ2 are also listed at 7;000 feet and both Jepps and ICAO plates are identical. 7;000 feet on this arrival is a minimum enroute altitude. It is not a valid descend via altitude. Per Jepps briefing bulletin 16-A1 Jepps SID/STAR-5 in the Jeppesen Airways Manual; published intersections on a STAR are listed in bold blue with lines above and below to define at; at or above; and at or below requirements. Minimum enroute altitudes are black without bold or lines above and below.I think the Controller was confused and having a bad day without a paycheck. I know our Approach Controllers are exceptionally well trained and professional. I think this was just a mistake with an unusual new chart. However; it may be worth reviewing this particular STAR because most STAR arrivals do not list minimum en route altitudes after the last published descend via altitude.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported a communication breakdown with ATC regarding a descend via clearance.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Night
Aircraft: A310
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Window Ice/Rain System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to departing de-ice was required. After deicing during taxi out I noticed a slight odor which I attributed to the de-ice effects. During the flight the odor at times increased. It had a somewhat dirty sock smell with a trace of plastic. We looked for but did not see any signs of smoke. The odor was unpleasant and as we were neared the top of descent I decided to have Maintenance determine its origin upon arrival. After shutdown we discussed the odor with Maintenance. They initially thought it may have come from the de-ice process. After they had left the cockpit to attend to another minor write-up my First Officer stood up to go to the back of the aircraft when he noticed sparking and flame coming from the wire bundle leading to the left lateral window. He went to get a fire extinguisher. I shook the bundle and turned off the window heat and pitot heat switches. The flame went out. I could have been more conservative in my assumptions of the odor coming from the de-ice process and investigated the cause more thoroughly before takeoff. Maintenance will have to offer solutions to prevent the shorting/arcing from occurring without any fault lights or circuit breakers popping.


Second narrative: [No additional information was included in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: The flight crew of an A310 continued their flight to destination believing an odor continuing through the flight was the result of residual fluid from de-icing prior to departure. As they got up to depart the aircraft at the gate they were confronted by a flaming wire bundle powering the window heat.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Very light winds; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The subject airplane was an Aeronca Model TAC65; called the Aeronca 'Defender'; a conventional-gear fabric-covered airplane. On landing number 7 of an aircraft familiarization and checkout flight with a rated Private Pilot with previous tailwheel endorsement; the left landing gear folded back and aircraft veered approx 30 degrees to the left and came to a stop about 20 FT to the left of runway centerline; on the runway (a dirt and gravel surface) with left wing low. The previous 6 landings; 5 at a different airport; and one at this one and the rest of the checkout flight; had been very good; smooth; no bounces; no indications of any problems. The pilot had handled the aircraft with precision and very smoothly; and I had decided I considered him competent and safe to fly the aircraft safely on his own. When we landed this time; where the flight had originated; and the aircraft was based; with a full-stall landing and groundspeed estimated at about 40 mph maximum; the airplane started leaning left on roll out. I saw the pilot (in front) had already full right aileron; and some right rudder; but the wing continued to lower on the left and a scraping sound was heard as the left gear was digging into the dirt. The airplane veered a bit to the left and stopped in a cloud of dust. We unstrapped; turned off the fuel and magnetos; and exited the aircraft. Then we could see the stub end of the left gear appeared broken and was outside of the oleo gear housing; and the broken gear had caused us to lean and veer to the left. There were no injuries. Damage appeared confined to the broken landing gear. A close walk-around inspection before flight had shown no anomalies. Aircraft had been recently inspected in accordance with Annual Inspection procedures. I don't know of anything we as pilots could have done to induce the gear failure; or to have any way to know the gear was about to; or had; broken.




Synopsis: Aeronca Instructor pilot; performing a tailwheel checkout for a private pilot; reports a landing gear failure on the seventh landing all of which had been very smooth. The aircraft is stopped on the runway with no other damage reported.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Snow
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: De-Icing Fluid
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Preflighted TKS system prior to flight into possible icing. Ramp personnel complained of TKS fluid chemical odor at plane. Prior to climbing into cloud layer (OAT 0*C +/-) turned on TKS anti ice system in 'Normal' mode for possible icing. Flight continued in and out of rain/snow mix. Heater off; all vents closed. Noted TKS odor in cockpit; burning of eyes; throat irritation; and slight difficulty breathing. Noted although forward side vents closed still had airflow entering cockpit and flappers closed but pointed up directing air into eyes. Then noted strong air flow entering cockpit through closed cockpit side window; air entering through rear seal on window. Aircraft is not pressurized so it is not air tight thus TKS mist entering cockpit.




Synopsis: A C-208 Captain reported eye irritation and breathing difficulty after using TKS in flight. The fluid seemed to enter through the closed cockpit side window's rear seal.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft on ZZZ TRACON frequency reported engine trouble and needed to land immediately; choosing ZZZ Airport. During the exchange with ATC they asked the pilot to write down a phone number to call if they landed safely.  This is an unnecessary distraction during what could be a high stress life or death situation.  It is a reminder to all of us that we need remember basics when it comes to flying safely: Aviate; Navigate; Communicate.  I called ZZZ TRACON at the completion of our flight and spoke to a supervisor about this and Supervisor defended the position that it was appropriate.  There are many documented instances of ATC detracting from the focus of aircrew during an emergency in order to get superfluous information.   Discussion with regarding priorities during a flight emergency and not allowing ATC to distract from critical flight duties/procedures.This issue should be escalated with the FAA AND INCLUDE TRAINING FOR ATC CONTROLLERS SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF DISTRACTING AIRCREW DURING AN EMERGENCY.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft Captain reported another pilot on frequency was experiencing engine issues and was asked by ATC to write down a phone number while trying to immediately land.  The Captain reported concerns with asking a pilot in distress to get 'superfluous information' while trying to focus during an emergency type situation.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JAX.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E JAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON JAX
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was cruising at 8;000 MSL on a clearance direct to HEVVN Intersection. The autopilot was engaged in NAV mode and ALT HOLD and the heading bug was centered on my current heading. I was in VMC conditions. There were some build ups in the area; but none along my flight path at that moment. The autopilot made an uncommanded hard left bank (I believe the autopilot disengaged but I am not sure.) I took the controls; pressed the autopilot disengage button; and smoothly rolled wings level and then returned back on course. There were no unusual attitudes and minimal change in altitude. I believe the change in heading was close to 90 degrees by the time I rolled wings level and then into the right hand turn. Once back on course; I reengaged the autopilot and there were no further issues the remainder of the flight.As I was recovering the aircraft; I received a call from ATC scolding me for deviating 'for weather' and that I was on an IFR flight plan and had to ask before doing so. I would like to reiterate that this was not a weather deviation. I also explained to the controller that it was and autopilot malfunction not an intended deviation. I also had every intention of contacting ATC to let them know that a deviation had occurred; but I wanted to FLY the aircraft first and then communicate.




Synopsis: A BE36 pilot was distressed that ATC scolded him for a purposeful track deviation for weather when; in actuality; his autopilot had malfunctioned and turned the aircraft some 90 degrees left before he could disconnect it and return to his cleared track.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: MEL; Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was pilot flying. The aircraft had the left generator placarded inoperative; and the APU was the 'second' generator per the MEL. After departing; approximately halfway to our destination; in cruise; the APU lost oil pressure and automatically shutdown. After consulting the QRH; the Captain declared an emergency as we were now down to one generator; night IMC; wintertime conditions. Checking weather at the nearest airports; we determined that the weather was not suitable for our condition; and we were seeking a VFR; if at least marginally VFR airport. After checking several airports; we decided on an airport we had just passed with 4 miles visibility; 1;000 FT; 11;900 FT runway; braking action good. The Captain did a great job working the QRH and normal checklists; and managing the flight deck as we flew to our divert airport. We discussed the possibility of the remaining generator failing; and then him performing the 'battery only' approach and landing. Fortunately; the remaining generator did not fail; and we landed uneventfully. This flight was my second emergency landing in less than two months. Both emergencies occurred from items that were previous write-ups in the logbook or placarded MEL items of important systems. In the case of this event; my only suggestion is that placarding a generator inoperative; with APU having a prior recent history for shutting down to low oil pressure (or any reason/history in the logbook); especially wintertime; is a bad idea. This was a 'learning experience' for me; and will guide my decision making in the future. This event is a good example of an emergency being entirely preventable.




Synopsis: A B737-800 was dispatched with an engine generator on MEL and an APU with a history of low oil pressure auto shutdowns. While inflight the APU auto shutdown causing the crew to declare an emergency and divert single generator to a nearby airport with suitable weather.
Date: 201406
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This report is being submitted concerning possible failures in our safety reporting mechanism. Specifically; Flight Manual 1 requires fire/smoke/fume events to be reported. FAR 25.831 require continuing airworthiness of compartment air to be free from harmful concentrations of gases. This aircraft experienced a smoke/fume event in May and again three days later. We have had numerous incidences of onboard fire/smoke/fume events. The objected data on the amount of these incidences shows an accelerating trend. Embraer airplanes out of service due to fire/smoke/fume events seem to confirm the accelerating trend. Specifically; 40 events of this kind since March 2014. Despite the overwhelming amount of occurrences; flight crews are not being given notice of occurrences or follow up of mechanical history of the aircraft after an occurrence. There has been no proposed change of procedures to prevent further occurrences. Embraers are being considered airworthy even if both engine oil consumption rates are chronically in question. Maintenance action to determine what is causing the occurrences. Enhance the reporting procedures in order for the crews who fly these aircraft are aware of the problems by disseminating information to pilots. In light of incidences; enhance the training of fire/smoke/fumes which are already in our manuals and increase training in smoke/fire/fumes recognition. Coordinate training with Aeromedical to ensure all crews are aware of the physiological effects of fire/smoke/fume inhalation. Coordinate training of flight crew with airport crash/fire/rescue under FAR 139.319.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain believes that his company's aircraft are involved in chronic smoke and fume events and the flight crews are not being given notice of occurrences or follow up of mechanical history of the aircraft.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Every day the Lobby at midday and after is short staffed.  Today was even more so! I was assigned to Position X to help passengers with their check in on kiosks.  Both Position X and X1 were open for passenger use.  There had only been myself and another agent assigned in that area and before I was even half an hour into my shift I was the only Customer Service (CS) agent working in both Position X and X1! Absolutely unacceptable and unbelievable! As I was working with a passenger; other agents were directing passengers who were unable to use kiosk on their own to see me.  Passengers started tapping and pulling at me to get me to attend to them but I was the only CS agent working in Position X and X1.  I kindly asked passengers to please stop touching and tugging at me; especially during this time of COVID.  I had no idea that the other agent who had been in Position X working was asked by a (Supervisor) to sign in to Position X2 to help clear the line leaving me all alone to assist all guests in X and X1.  Staffing needs to be properly assigned to the Lobby and not leave the Lobby short staffed on a continual basis and causing Lobby agents to burn out from overload.




Synopsis: Customer Service Agent reported concerns with the daily under staffing in the airport lobby and the difficulties it is creating during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 202112
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X arrived at the gate with the APU duct pressure seal clamp not installed. The aircraft was taken out of service. This job takes approximately 4 hours to correct if you have no other issues. There have been several other aircraft with the same issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Technician reported an APU pressure duct seal clamp not installed and took the aircraft out of service for maintenance.