elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
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
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was vectoring the final to Runway 12 at TRACON; (West Approach). A BE30 was working in South Approach; immediately South and adjacent to my airspace. A point out was given to me by the South Approach Controller. This coordination included the BE30 aircraft was to slightly penetrate my airspace by going to a 12 mile final. I observed the BE30 aircraft on the final to the adjacent airport so I turned my traffic inbound to [the Class C airport]. Then I observed the BE30 aircraft reverse course; toward my traffic. Apparently the BE30 aircraft needed to intercept his final from the north side. I was not aware; or at least didn't fully understand the requested route by the BE30 aircraft. Both my aircraft and the flight check aircraft were at 3;000 MSL. I immediately vectored my B757 away from flight check and initiated a climb. I was turning to a 160 heading to join the localizer and turned my aircraft away; to the right heading 220. I believed this heading would provide the necessary course divergence separation. Better coordination; in detail; of Flight Check requirements. I have for years wondered why flight check cannot provide a detailed request of their requirements to the facility; prior to their arrival. This would allow for proper planning and quite possibly better service to the flight check organization. Making this up as you go along can lead to confusion; (as I believe was the case here); and possibly create a less safe environment for all.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a conflict event during Flight Check operations noting that increased and detailed coordination between Flight Check and local ATC facilities is needed.
Date: 202109
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
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
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon entering aircraft  for preflight FA (Flight Attendant) 2&1 smelled strange burning smell in cabin. Specially strong near aircraft right window exit. Notified Captain; he smelled same odor. Captain turned off APU; smell persisted. Captain called maintenance and saw brown oily looking substance above window exit. FA's were onboard for approx 15-20 min and began to all notice mild symptoms; funny taste in mouth; mild headache; dizziness. FA's deplaned and sat at gate. Captain refused aircraft; FA's were removed from trip by manager.




Synopsis: A319 flight attendants reported a fume event during pre-flight. The Captain was notified; APU was secured and maintenance was summoned. Captain refused aircraft.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was doing 3 landings for currency before a planned [sight-seeing flight] with a passenger later that day. Everything was normal before takeoff. There was no evidence of a leak on the ground at the tie-down area and the plane braked fine during the brake check and taxiing to the runup area. I completed three landings: first one was a full stop with a taxi back (two left turns); second was a touch-and-go; and third was intended to be a full stop. On the third landing I realized that I was having a right brake failure. After using up more than half the runway and not wanting to go over the end of the runway I made a very shallow veer into the grass just to the left of the runway and came to a stop near the end of the runway. The tow truck was able to pull the plane out of the grass while still parked on the runway. There was no damage to person; plane or property. The plane has since been serviced and it was found that one of the brake lines had a hairline fracture; which resulted in a loss of pressure. The brake line was replaced and the plane has recently been returned to service after completing its annual.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a runway excursion occurred when the left brake failed on the landing roll.
Date: 201203
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Flight Planning
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Weather; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Our flight was being dispatched during severe weather events. The airport was experiencing moderate to severe turbulence and wind shear which was causing multiple diverts and go-arounds. The forecast was not to improve until well after we were gone. PIREPS from the inbound crews suggested a need to find a different route and altitude. One Captain said it was the worst he had ever seen. Needless to say we started a new plan to the route and altitudes. Dispatch had us on a track with moderate to severe turbulence forecast and our en route alternates; although legal; were not going to give us any help if we had a cargo fire and had to divert. I needed a new route and alternates. The response I got from Dispatch was 'I do not have time for this and since the planned route is legal just take it and leave me alone. I have other more important problems like the diverts.' My reaction was I cannot believe what I just heard. I tried again explaining that we needed alternates that worked for us and also a new route possibly south. Again; I was stonewalled. Dispatch said there was '...no time to take a look at a new route or alternates and once again to leave me alone as I have no time for you.'I called back at least half a dozen times trying my best to get some help from our Dispatcher. All the pilots in the room were listening to this and we figured out that we were all on our own and that the flight planning is going to be on us. Dispatch had decided that we were not important enough to help out in a situation that really needed extra care in planning and coordinating.I really hope this is an isolated incident. Dispatch markets themselves as the 'go to' guys in time of need. Today; we lost them completely. And we were told in no uncertain terms that we were to go away and take what was filed. Do not think; do not plan; and do not mutually agree on a safe plan. This is UNACCEPTABLE. International operations half way around the world need particular care in planning and conducting a safe dispatch and flight.




Synopsis: The Captain of a yet to depart Eastbound Transpacific flight during extreme weather conditions voiced concern over conflicts between himself and a harried Dispatcher who was too overwhelmed with higher priority situations to discuss new routes and alternates for the flight.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending to 9;000 feet on the BUNTS3 Arrival into PHL a target appeared on our MFD with no corresponding altitude. We began to look for the traffic and then received a TA alert from the TCAS and then spotted the target at our 12'oclock position within 3 miles. I then turned off the autopilot and turned at about 30-35 degrees bank to avoid colliding with the aircraft. The Captain called ATC and advised them we were maneuvering to avoid colliding with the traffic. After we were clear of the traffic we requested to direct BUNTS to return to the arrival. After we returned to course we asked ATC about the traffic and they said they didn't have a Mode C transponder and didn't think they were above 3;000 feet.Always be vigilant for traffic regardless if ATC advises you of them or not. Be especially vigilant if the traffic target does not have an altitude shown.


Second narrative: We were in VMC conditions and descending to cross BUNTS at 8;000. The TCAS showed a primary target a few miles ahead of us. We heard the 'traffic' call by the TCAS. We both started scanning even more in the 10-1 o'clock position that TCAS showed the traffic. I didn't have time to ask ATC; when I spotted the traffic at 12 o'clock and less than 3 miles; we were closing in fast (IAS was 250 knots). I called out 'traffic 12 o'clock' to the First Officer who was flying. He confirmed he saw it and immediately turned off Autopilot and made a sharp bank right to avoid the plane. As we turned right to overtake the plane; we passed about less than a 1/2 mile and passed through the same altitude (I could make out that it was a Piper Cherokee type plane with fixed gear). In the turn we notified ATC that we were deviating off course to avoid traffic at 9;500 ft traveling in a NE direction. ATC stated that he wasn't aware of any traffic in that area above 3;000 ft. We were cleared direct BUNTS by ATC after a lateral deviation of a few miles and continued to PHL uneventfully after avoiding and passing the traffic.


Synopsis: CL65 flight crew reported taking evasive action to avoid a collision with a light aircraft on arrival into PHL. Reporter stated the conflict aircraft had no altitude readout on the TCAS.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BUF.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Air Conditioning and Press.
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After opening the passenger/cargo door at gate; received an OVBD COOL caution and a DISPLAY COOL FAIL status message that would not clear. I went through the QRH checklist and even after selecting 2 other fans; messages would not clear. I wrote it up and called Maintenance Control. In the middle of the write up; he interrupted me and asked if I had cycled the passenger door. No jet bridge was attached. I was told to do that so they could save the money from calling out Local Maintenance. I cycled the doors and the message cleared. I wanted to continue the write up but he had me mark 'Entered in Error' across my write up instead. I reminded him a couple of times that I believed the write up was required and I was disregarded. That same issue in flight; if not cleared; is a land at nearest suitable airport. On ground; no fan would clear the messages. I did not want to argue because Maintenance had labeled me as uncooperative in a previous; similar event. This situation seems to be a common; accepted; and expected sort of thing so I am not sure if this would be considered an issue but wanted to highlight it anyway.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 pilot observed equipment cooling warning messages after the aircraft doors were open. He began to make a log book entry and contacted Maintenance Control. They were familiar with the problem and proposed a solution; to cycle the door. When this cleared the messages; Maintenance Control suggested voiding the write up to avoid the time and expense of a maintenance call. The pilot was concerned that this was against policy; but complied to avoid seeming uncooperative.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [I became aware that] both of these flights were in the same airspace with the same call sign. The other Dispatcher notified ATC and [changed one of the flights] to mitigate the problem. Both flights had been planned already when [this dispatch shift] got in.We failed to [change the flight number of] one of the flights before both flights got in the air.We should not be assigning two flights out of two different stations the same call sign because there is no notification if it becomes an issue.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported noticing two company flights were in the air simultaneously with the same flight number.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Aircraft component: Flight Director
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for visual 27R and although familiar with PHL and clear sky; couldn't pick out runway initially. Vectors were to a visual inside FAF and picked up runway a bit late; selected autopilot off; but failed to turn off flight directors. Speed was managed so just as flaps three called for and selected by captain; speed increased to over speed flaps. Go around was conducted while nose was pulled up and power manually reduced and flight directors turned off. After vectors to final again; almost did the same thing as flight directors had been turned back on again while hand flying aircraft; when power came up again; captain turned off flight directors and landing was made. After shutting down at gate; we had [a] discussion about what we had done wrong and about remembering to shut off flight directors in manual flight unless right on course and slope. After all night flight with minimal to no sleep in previous 24 hours I was not on my game but should have caught flight directors. I let automation surprise me and got complacent going into a known field.Flying approximately once every two to three weeks on reserve since January I just feel comfortable in plane again before sitting for another few weeks. I therefore have flown mostly ILS and rarely hand fly visuals. After little sleep [the] previous day and flying all night I should have chosen to take ILS rather than short vectors for a visual. I need to fly more visuals at more appropriate times to become comfortable with them.




Synopsis: A fatigued Airbus First Officer attempted a hand flown visual approach to PHL Runway 27R; but was forced to execute a go-around after failing to turn the flight directors off. Autothrust advanced power on the approach which also resulted in a flaps overspeed.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We landed without landing clearance from the Tower. Approach vectored us to intercept the localizer; just prior to intercepting localizer; Approach changed runway to the left runway. The Captain changed the runway in the FMS. I referenced the Jeppesen chart for new runway. Approach gave us another heading; then cleared us back to the right runway and the Controller apologized for confusion. The Captain updated the FMS. I referenced original chart for the right runway. We intercepted the localizer and were cleared for the approach. Approach instructed us to maintain 170 knots until the Final Approach Fix. I did not hear a frequency change to Tower as I was focused on configuring the aircraft to ensure a stable approach. After landing; we exited the runway. The Captain noticed he had not switched to Tower and he contacted Tower for instructions. Tower cleared us to cross and contact Ground.Approach initially cleared us to descend via the arrival except to maintain 11;000 feet. We were kept high throughout the arrival. We were cleared initially for the right runway; then just prior to intercepting localizer; we were cleared to the left runway and then again to the right runway. This resulted in increased task saturation and increased focus on configuring the aircraft due to the close proximity to the airport. Ensure both pilots confirm 'cleared to land' prior to landing.


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


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported they were not issued a frequency change to the Tower and landed without a clearance.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately one hour after takeoff the number one flight attendant informed me that a passenger's computer started to smoke and get hot. The computer was shut down and the smoking stopped. I directed the flight attendants to run their high energy battery fires checklist. The computer was placed in an empty catering cart and placed in the rear of the aircraft. All checklist items were observed. At approximately 30 mins from landing the number one flight attendant called the cockpit to inform me that the computer was again getting hot. I [advised] ATC and was given traffic priority for an approach into [our destination]. Crash fire rescue was requested but never showed up. After parking at the gate again no fire personnel showed up. I decided to roll the catering cart with the computer off the aircraft and onto the jet bridge. We then deplaned all passengers.  Ground personnel removed the computer from the catering cart and returned it to the passenger.




Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew was advised by a Flight Attendant of smoke in the cabin associated with a passenger's personal computer. The computer was removed to a safe area and an uneventful landing was accomplished at the destination airport.