elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Overhead Bins; Latches
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to landing; a piece of metallic trim light cover fell from the overhead bins where they meet the fuselage nearly striking the passenger and BIA in [Seat Number]. A quick reaction by the passenger in [Seat Number] to hold up the trim prevented any injuries. Passengers in [Seat Number; Seat Number; and Seat Number] held the trim up during landing and taxi to the gate. Upon turning off the active runway; I notified the flight deck of the situation and we continued to the gate. I was unable to remove the trim fully as it was still attached on one end. Upon arrival to the gate; while holding the trim in place so the passengers could move out from under it; the trim detached fully from the ceiling. Red Coats met the plane and the First Officer escorted the passengers in [Seat Number and Seat Number] up the bridge to them. No injuries were apparent or reported by passengers. Metal wear of trim fasteners... (as discussed with Maintenance who met the aircraft).




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported Overhead Bin Trim Piece on CRJ-200 fell down during flight; no injuries reported.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B787-800
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: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a functional check flight for aircraft coming out of heavy maintenance. We had completed climb; high altitude; and descent functional checks and had entered holding at 16;000 feet to complete the low block checks. The first check was the alternate/secondary flap check. Flaps/slats operated normally during the alternate extension to 20 degrees. Once at 20 degrees; the alternate system is turned off; the center hydraulics is turned off and the normal flap handle is moved from 20 degrees to 30 degrees. The aircraft senses the loss of hydraulics and is supposed to drive the slats and flaps to the selected position. The slats drive first. The slats sense a skew or jam and did not drive out. This resulted in a SLATS DRIVE message. As pilot monitoring; I called out the failure and then positioned the flap handle to match the current flap position of 20 degrees. We [notified ATC] for the flight control failure and made a 20 flap landing with crash; fire; rescue standing by because of the increased airspeed for the landing. There had been noted corrosion issues with the slat rollers on our 787 fleet. The lubrication cycle has been halved in an effort to address the issues. We are still seeing corrosion with the rollers. Boeing as manufacturer and airline operators need to investigate possible replacement of slat rollers with materials that won't have the corrosion issue.




Synopsis: B787-800 Captain reported a slat drive malfunction during a functional check flight. Captain also noted there appears to be a corrosion issue with the slat rollers on 787 aircraft.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was level at FL350 and was flashing to ZLA 32 the sector the aircraft was going to be entering; ZLA32 called me and gave the control instruction; 'Aircraft X descend and maintain FL330.'  My response of 'Roger; Wilco; show it.'  I then gave the control instruction to the aircraft. The problem comes then with the fact that the aircraft was entering ZLA33's airspace with the descent clearance and ZLA32 had the hand-off; they had to show the new altitude because of the problem with the fact that ZLA does not share the idea of taking hand-offs back and entering new information rather they feel the needs to OK information into all sorts of data blocks.  The aircraft was never handed off to ZLA33 and I shipped the aircraft to the sector that it would be entering.ZLA should conform with the rest of the centers in the FAA and understand that their idea of ok functions are not needed to keep safety.  These so-called controllers in ZLA are horribly inefficient and obviously unsafe because they have all these extra procedures in place because of having so many deals; both with airspace and aircraft. There should also be directive in the .65 about who is responsible for progressing hand offs in cases like these. I am under the idea that because the ZLA controller issued the control instruction they are responsible for the progression of the hand off as well as all coordination.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reports of an altitude change that he is not able to modify on the radar screen because another ATC Center has control of the aircraft.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ1.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Central Warning/Master Caution
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X; ZZZ-ZZZ1; on decent into ZZZ1 at about 7;000 feet the gear warning audio went off 'landing gear-landing gear-landing gear' in a very loud tone in both headset and speaker. A quick troubleshooting of the system showed #2 radar altimeter 0 feet to -5 feet and #1 normal for 7;000 feet (hidden) no CAS message or other evidence of a fault. Left us with no direction for check list. We tried selecting the gear override switch but that was of no help silencing the audio. In my 35 years at this airline I have experienced many in flight emergencies including 5 engine failures however never in all those experiences has it been so hard to concentrate on dealing with the problem with the continued very loud 'landing gear-landing gear' over and over with no way to turn it off. It was also very evident to the forward flight attendant and most likely front half of the aircraft passengers. When we have a fire we get multiple warnings but we can silence the audio warning wile we work the problem. The other part that bothers me from a safety standpoint is we have two radar altimeter systems #1 and #2 if both are in agreement that's one thing but in this case only one was faulty. We should not get to this level of alarm during a disagreement or miss-comparison. I propose that we find a solution or fix so in the future crews can have an option in some way to silence this type of warning after they have acknowledged the problem. In our case we lowered the gear to silence the warning; this might not always be the best course of action.




Synopsis: Captain reported extending the landing gear to silence a continuous Landing Gear aural warning.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the Janny 5 arrival into BUR on radar vectors off of wabbit. ATC vectored us to cross over the hills/mountains at 5;000 ft. The aircraft gave an aural 'terrain pull up' message and then promptly went away. I saw the RA come down to 1400 ft. which would have caused the warning as the aircraft was in a clean configuration. We were in VMC conditions.Crossing the peaks of the hills/mountains on radar vectors in the clean configuration at 5;000 ft. caused the warning.Maybe the MVA needs to be raised in that location to prevent RA's from occurring. We need 2;000 ft. separation from terrain in mountainous areas and the RA will set off the terrain warning in a clean configuration when less than 1;500 ft. above the ground.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on descent into BUR; and recommended ATC use a higher altitude for arrivals over terrain.
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: Parked
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Toilet Furnishing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pre-flight of Flight ABCD ZZZ-ZZZ1; Flight Attendant informed the Captain that the sink was empty of water and a note had been left in the lavatory informing of the issue. Noting that potable water is not available at the outstation; the Captain made the decision to depart as scheduled to meet on time arrival at ZZZ1. Upon arrival at ZZZ1; crew noted that ground operations did re-fill [the] potable water tank. Crew was unaware that the lavatory sink itself was inoperative.


Second narrative: Flight Attendant notified me of a note in the lavatory stating that there was no water in the lavatory sink. The Flight Attendant said she could not get any water to dispense from the sink. I made an assumption that the reservoir was empty; and that was the reason why it was not working. I made the decision to continue with the flight knowing that ZZZ did not have the capability to refill the reservoir. Thinking we could have it filled in ZZZ1. I was notified later in the day that the sink in that aircraft was inoperative and it had caused a delay on the aircraft's next flight. [I] was given a call and counseled about having potable water in the aircraft lavatories due to COVID-19. I regret the decision that I made as Captain. I just wanted to get the passengers to their final destination. I should have complied with Standard Operating Procedures.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported they departed with an inoperative lavatory sink.
Date: 201810
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal takeoff from Runway 22R in KEWR.  International flight.  After gear lever was positioned up; we got an EICAS message Gear Disagree and Gear Doors.  We completed checklists for both but could not get the EICAS messages to go away.  Coordinated with Chicago Dispatch and New York TRACON while attempting to solve problem.  We then [requested priority] with New York Approach Control and returned to Newark Airport.


Second narrative: Everything about flight was normal and SOP (except that Ctr ADP Auto position was deferred) until gear retraction. Gear was placed in 'Up' position and after about 30 seconds we get EICAS messages GEAR Doors and Landing Gear Disagree. At first; I thought the issue was related to the Ctr ADP (ADP switch was in ON position) and that gear was just slow to retract. Gear synoptic showed nose and right gear to be UP and left gear was in transit. When it became apparent that there was some other issue; I instructed the FO to maintain 230kts in clean configurations while continuing to climb. We could definitely feel that there was something in the slipstream. As this was happening the two International Relief Officer were reviewing both QRH procedures for the malfunction. There was discussion as to what we thought was happening and our options. The QRH procedures didn't really lend themselves to troubleshooting; but mentioned max airspeed with gear down. We did slow to 180kts in attempt to get gear up and doors closed per QRH. SATCOM call with Dispatch and Maintenance lead us to try and cycle the gear. Gear handle was put in down position and a DOWN indication was received; but GEAR DOORS message was still there. After consultation with Maintenance; Chief Pilot; and crew; it was unanimously decided to not raise the gear for fear of not getting another DOWN indication. [Priority was requested] and uneventful landing was   accomplished.


Synopsis: B767 flight crew reported EICAS gear anomalies on departure resulted in a return to airport.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ELP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We pushed back from the gate; requested taxi and were told 'taxi to Runway 8R via ramp.' No taxiways were assigned. I completed the engine start and immediately went into the taxi and before takeoff checklist/flows. The Captain taxied out and crossed what he thought was the approach holding line for 8R not realizing that doing so took him onto the extended threshold of 8R. After I finished the checklist and flows I noticed we were on a threshold and questioned him. He said no this is the approach area and the runway starts ahead. At exactly that time the Tower called and advised we had taxied past the hold short area but that it was no problem and that we were cleared for takeoff. Nothing further was said by the controller about the occurrence. The flight continued with no other issues.We were both tired from early wake up calls on the last leg of day four. This was a VERY short taxi from gate to runway and I was preoccupied running all the needed flows and checklists to get plane ready for takeoff. 90 percent of that time my head was down or occupied on flows. It is also a VERY confusing area transitioning from the ramp to the runway. [There are] very confusing markings in that area.Due to very short taxi and knowing this is a confusing area on the ramp we should have completed checklists/flows as much as possible prior to commencing taxi so that both sets of eyes could be focused on the taxi.




Synopsis: While the First Officer was occupied by checklists during a very short taxi to Runway 8R at ELP the Captain taxied across the runway hold short line without a clearance. No conflicts resulted and the Tower cleared them for takeoff. The First Officer reported fatigue as a contributing factor.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Distraction
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff I noticed an acrid/dirty sock smell; I mentioned to the captain as we began to rotate. During initial climb the fume began to get worse. Somewhere around 1000 feet I put my oxygen mask on and that is where I noticed a blue/gray fume/smoke coming from the vent above my oxygen mask case. Captain declared PAN PAN PAN and I took over communications as he began the QRH procedures. We landed back in [departure airport] and proceeded to the gate. Once passengers were off the aircraft I noticed I was not feeling well nor were the other crew members. EMT services were requested and the Captain and I were transported to the local hospital.


Second narrative: Just after take-off a strong; burning odor was very strong in the aft part of the aircraft. Within minutes; the CA (Captain) called and informed that we were returning to airport with a precautionary landing.On taxi-in; two F/A's (Flight Attendants) in the AFT had strong headaches immediately. FO (First Officer) and FWD FA were nauseous. FO was flushed; vomited and almost passed out. He was taken to the ER by paramedics. All 3 FA's were transported by Company to ER.


Synopsis: A319 pilot and flight attendant reported strong; incapacitating fumes in the cockpit and cabin immediately after takeoff; necessitating an immediate return to the departure airport.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This flight was flown into RNO during a period of variable weather and visibilities with intermittent snow and rain in the area. The arrival time was near dusk. I was the Pilot Flying and we briefed and flew the RNAV RNP Y 16R. The approach was flown in accordance with our Standard Procedures with .3 set on the RNP on the LEGS page and the ANP showing a .01 accuracy. I believe the temperature was above freezing. The approach was backed up with the RNO ILS to 16R with 110.9 set in both NAV radios. While on the approach approximately one mile prior to MASTR; and in contact with RNO Tower; the Tower issued a Low Altitude Alert to us. No EGPWS Cautions or Warnings occurred. We checked both EGPWS indications and raw radio altimeter indications and all were normal and green. We were monitoring aircraft status on the approach; the approach mode was in LNAV and VNAV PATH and our path indicators were centered for vertical and lateral deviations. The autopilot and autothrottles were engaged in CMD mode. Nothing on the approached looked abnormal and the ghost glide path indications from the 16R ILS were centered with the VNAV PATH indications.As the aircraft rolled out on final near OKITE all Localizer indications were centered as well. Basically everything worked fine with the aircraft and we landed uneventfully. Upon our taxi back we queried the Tower concerning the low altitude alert while on the approach. They said that if the aircraft is near one of the mountains while on the approach that their equipment will signal the warning. I think that if this is part of the normal procedure while flying the RNAV RNP approaches that there should be a note either on the approach plate or within the Company 10-7 pages to prevent confusion.This is a high threat airport when it comes to terrain. The RNAV RNP approaches reduce the risks extensively. If our procedures are going to cause an ATC low altitude warning; then we need to know that either on the approach plate or on the Company information page. I really should get no warning from ATC when the approach is flown properly.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to RNO even though the aircraft appeared to be on course and altitude.