elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent through FL190; a distinct dirty sock odor was detected by both pilots. Oxygen masks donned. 7700 squawked and [advised] with ATC. Reason given for [advising]. Emergency equipment followed to gate; no external issues found. Normal shutdown checklist completed. Report filed by pilots. Confirmation of submission. Mechanic briefed. Mechanic informed me flight attendants reported to him the dirty sock odor was evident after gear retraction in ZZZ. I asked the mechanic for the AML back to update my write up. He refused stating he would advise the Maintenance Manager. He did not as evidenced by the narrative on [reporting website]. I followed up with the [point of contact] in Maintenance Control. He said he would accurately update my briefing in the comments section. He requested I refile my report and I did. He confirmed receipt. The On Duty pilot called to check on crew. ZZZ1 Director called me to check on crew also. ZZZ line mechanic inaccuracies in report narrative is an injustice to all parties involved and a negative aspect to safety in so far as correcting issues.


Second narrative: After a shallow descent was started; pulled for open descent to comply with STAR constraints; engines came to idle; and a strong 'dirty sock' smell was observed in the cockpit. The Captain and I agreed it was a fume event associated with atomized engine oil from our training lessons. We donned O2 masks; I was the Pilot Flying and took control of the Aircraft. Directed ECAM ACTION and the Captain performed the appropriate checklists while I flew the Aircraft and talked to ATC; and landed in ZZZ without any mishaps. Emergency vehicles followed us to the gate and boarded the aircraft and investigated the event. Suspected engine oil seal leaking allowing atomized oil to enter the aircraft pack system.


Synopsis: A330 flight crew reported a fume event during descent; advised ATC; and emergency vehicles followed the aircraft to the gate. Captain also experienced a communication issue with the mechanic regarding the logbook write up.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Company Operations Manual
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During boarding I was not informed that we had an emotional support animal. During the flight I realized there was a crate under a passenger seat. I then asked the C flight attendant if she was aware about the animal. Her answer was 'no'. I then took a look at the paperwork that was given to me and I realized there was a code 'ESAN' which we figured out meant emotional support animal. We were not aware of what kind of animal but since it was listed we figured the proper procedures had been reviewed prior to boarding. Which is normal protocol for any animal that boards our aircraft. When we landed in Mexico City and going through customs we then realized it was a monkey in the crate. The C flights attendant asked the owner if monkeys were allowed in Mexico to which the owner responded yes. That she has traveled with the monkey before and it's never been a problem. The following morning we arrived at our gate for our departure and we see the family at the gate. They had been detained in Mexico because of the monkey. After arriving we had some ground time. Before our next flight we were notified that our arriving aircraft had been quarantined because of the monkey. As you can see this was a huge inconvenience not only for the family but for us as crew and the airline. The lack of communication and knowledge has caused major problems and I this situation should have never happened. Either this airport needs more training or they need to put agents that have the knowledge regarding international laws.More communication from ground operations. I know we were running late and the rush to board the flight was their first priority but communication and knowledge regarding international laws should be a top priority as well.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight attendants; with a Mexico City destination; reported an emotional service monkey on board the aircraft which caused the plane to be quarantined.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While preparing for landing at the local airport the front landing gear did not extended. The mains came out as usual and provided 2 green lights but the front light remained red. After pulling the emergency handle the front still did not come out. I notified local traffic of my situation on the local unicom and proceeded to land. The landing was smooth until the nose hit the ground. No injuries; some damage.




Synopsis: Beagle 206 pilot reported landing with the nose gear retracted after it failed to extend using normal and emergency methods.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot flying as we departed [to the south] and at approximately 500 feet AGL we heard a very loud 'bang' which was instantly accompanied by significant yaw and vibration and an EGT on the right engine in excess of 913 degrees. Captain X was acting as my First Officer as this was to be my FAA initial upgrade observation flight. Captain X initiated the memory items and checklist associated with Severe Damage while Captain Y who was to evaluate me began communications with the Number 1 Flight Attendant. Shutting down the engine eliminated all vibration and at that point I elected to climb to 4;000 feet MSL and accept delay vectors while Captain X proceeded with the expanded checklists. With the winds shifting I requested the ILS to [land north] for approach and landing. Captain X was able to secure a discreet frequency for our approach and confirmed with the Tower that our plan was to stop on the runway and await an assessment of our condition from Fire personnel. We were given an approximately 10 mile final and landed under our maximum gross landing weight. Captain X and Captain Y were invaluable and enabled us to divide responsibilities and thoroughly complete all required checklists.


Second narrative: I was acting as an evaluator sitting in the jumpseat for initial captain upgrade. After right engine experienced compressor stalls during initial climbout I began to assist as needed with checklist procedures; company communications and return preparations.


Synopsis: B757 Captain and two Check Airmen on an initial Captain upgrade flight; experience an engine failure at 500 FT accompanied by high vibration and fire viewed by the Tower. The Captains combine efforts to accomplish checklists and return to the departure airport for a single engine landing.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Inspector
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am filing this for some clarification. 2 Inspectors and I performed an inspection procedure on a 757 engine due to a bird strike. There was a point of contention on what it was that we were to inspect using the Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (FPI) Spot Inspection. The conversation was in a casual manner at first but then took a wrong turn in my view when the supervisor chimed in. We all made mention of how we normally perform our normal best practice procedures; using the FPI Spot Inspection. We normally inspect beyond the normal strike area; to ensure that we accomplish a thorough inspection. Our supervisor stated; as a matter of fact; that the card we were working states 'If you can see bird remains on the Outlet Guide Vane (OGV); do a FPI Spot Inspection; of the OGV segment that has evidence of bird strike'. He then proceeded to inform the three of us; that we were not to look anywhere but that exclusive area of the known strike; or we would be held insubordinate. At this point; there was a growing concern among the 3 of us. I have on numerous occasions heard or have known the following statement. The FAA will contend that we are held to a higher standard for the work that is to be performed and performed by Inspection. We also are of the understanding that any FAA licensed personnel may be answerable for any neighboring discrepancies that may have been in the area at the time of addressing the original discrepancy. With all this being noted; why would it not be of a best practice to extend the areas of our inspection to just outside of the known strike area; without the threat of being held insubordinate should we 'exceed' the known strike area? So the question is; and where we need some extra clarity is this. Wouldn't the FAA hold myself or any other inspector to a standard that the company; as stated by our supervisor; neither promotes nor fosters in the name of aviation safety?


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


Synopsis: During inspection on a B757 engine due to a bird strike; company supervisor threatened the inspectors with insubordination if they inspected beyond what was required per the maintenance card.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Aircraft component: Winglet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] asked to re-position an aircraft that was in storage; We moved it closer to Aircraft X that was already in storage. They then asked us to move it even closer to Aircraft X. While we were moving Aircraft Y  struck Aircraft X. We felt comfortable with the first movement of Aircraft Y; we all felt uncomfortable when [we were] asked to move it even  closer to Aircraft X.


Second narrative: [It was] requested [to] re-position aircraft(s) at storage area. Note: 4 aircraft were parked at the storage area. Requested that 2 aircraft to be parked closer together. Aircraft Y was re-position closer to Aircraft X. [It was] requested Aircraft Y to be moved even closer to Aircraft X.


Synopsis: Air carrier ground crew reported that while repositioning an aircraft in a remote parking location; the wing struck an adjacent parked aircraft. The crew reported that the move was done to fit more aircraft into the parking location.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on Runway 22L; as we initiated our takeoff at about 20 or 30 knots we received an ECAM message 'F/CTL ELAC 1 PITCH FAULT'. We rejected the takeoff and notified Tower that we aborted our takeoff and needed to clear the runway to perform a procedure for an alert we had received. After clearing the runway we applied QRH procedures and informed Maintenance Control. We were advised to do an ELAC1 reset which solved the problem. Upon completion of the procedure we proceeded to Runway 22L for another takeoff and received the same fault again with another rejected takeoff. After that we were advised by Maintenance Control to return to the gate. Maintenance deferred ELAC1 which required us to perform a fairly lengthy flight crew action associated with the MEL. After they completed the deferral there were no further faults were noted and the flight continued without any other faults.  Maintenance advised us that our aircraft was not the only one with this problem that morning; and it seemed that due to the extreme frigid cold temperatures over the USA; that it was playing havoc and the 'ELAC1 Pitch Fault' alert had happened to 6 other company aircraft.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer experiences an ELAC1 fault during takeoff and the takeoff is rejected. The ELAC is reset and the second takeoff attempt produces the same result. The crew returns to the gate and Maintenance defers ELAC1; allowing the fight to depart. The reported states that he was informed by Maintenance that six other company flights that morning had the same fault; which was attributed to extreme cold weather.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: HS 125 Series
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: 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: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Hawker was on a vector for Runway 01C at 3;000 FT and a CRJ was on downwind for Runway 01L. I turned the CRJ on a base heading a descended them to 3;000 FT. I had planned on the CRJ turning in front of the Hawker; however due to the new GIBBZ RNAV arrival; the CRJ was further west and heading southwest. This resulted in the CRJ making a wider turn than I'm used too; because of this wide turn I lost separation with the CRJ and the Hawker prior to the CRJ having the airport in sight. I would recommend moving the fix SIYOB on the GIBBZ arrival to the west as this would allow a heading between SIYOB and MIKEJ that would parallel the final approach course. Also; with the new arrival the airspace boundary with final and Tilly Sector is further south and this makes it harder to descend the arrivals on downwind and turn towards the airport.




Synopsis: PCT Controller experienced a loss of separation event between two arrivals to IAD. The reporter listed the new GIBBS RNAV STAR's track as contributing to the event.
Date: 201706
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Right before boarding I started to get itchy; the C FA asked if I was feeling ok; she told me my chest was really red looked like it was sunburned. She asked if I had a sunburn or had been in the sun and I told her I hadn't been in the sun. I looked like I had a really bright sunburn on my chest. My arms started to get red and I looked under my skirt and my legs were red also; I immediately took a Zyrtec to see if the symptoms would subside. This was the 3rd trip I have worn my new uniform and I'm not sure if the heat on the airplane caused my reaction. I called in sick and on my way home ended up with a headache and started coughing. I also was itching all over. When I returned home I took off the uniform and took photos of the reaction and took some Benadryl. Hot on the aircraft; heat activated the reaction. Have jumpseats cleaned and recall uniforms.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported an allergic reaction to the new company supplied uniform.
Date: 202202
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Final Approach; Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Leaving ZZZ to ZZZ1. After take off; Captain did an all-call to ask if we smell something unusual. All Fa's (Flight Attendants) said yes. Captain asked if any of us have experienced fumes in a cabin before and none of the working crew have but the jumpseater seated by 1L have and that jumpseater said it smells exactly like fumes from the plane. Captain then was checking in on us to see if he should have the plane turn around. I'm not sure how his decision making process was but we ended up continuing with the flight.  Later into the flight; Captain called us (all-call) to ask each FA for what symptoms we were having. All Fa's got a headache; #4 got watery eyes as well; #3 had a weird taste on his lips. Eventually once more leveled off from take-off; the smell dissipated. However; as we were about to land; I started smelling the same fume scent again and when we were taxiing into our gate in ZZZ1; I called all FA's to see if they were smelling the fumes again. #4 said she was definitely smelling it again. I was not sure what the #3 said or the #1 said. When we got to the gate; I believe the smell was gone or not as bad anymore. After all passengers deplaned; as I was walking out of the plane; I passed by 3L 3R and all of a sudden a strong smell of the fumes again. I [could] see Maintenance was on board and left to head to operations with FA #1. We talked to Maintenance Operations Manager to see what we can do. We asked them to give us information of an urgent care address and how to go about with a report.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Attendant reported a fume event during climb. The fumes dissipated initially but returned during final landing approach. All flight attendants experienced physiological symptoms.