elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing out we could smell something that was like burnt plastic. The lead flight attendant called and said he could smell something as well in the forward part of the airplane but not in the aft part. We followed company procedures; using the QRH to trouble shoot but after a few minutes the smell went away. We were not able to determine where the source of the smell was coming from or what dissipated it. After landing we contacted Maintenance; Dispatch and Operations. After Maintenance looked at the aircraft they determined that there were no mechanical issues.


Second narrative: Right after takeoff; on initial climb; the smell of burnt rubber was smelled profusely in the cockpit. The forward Flight Attendant called stating that he smelled it as well. After about 5 minutes; the smell dissipated rapidly after 10 minutes the smell was completely gone. We ran the appropriate checklists for odor. There was never smoke; just odor. I did call ZZZ Tower to ask if there was any FOD reported; in the thought of a blown tire. They came back with a; 'negative; no reports.' Cause: We never found a reason as to why the reason occurred. Maintenance was called and met us at the gate in ZZZ1.


Synopsis: ERJ flight crew reported a fume event during initial climb that was also detected by Flight Attendants. The fumes dissipated during trouble shooting.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Push Back
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During pushback the load close out was received by the crew. The Flight Crew discovered an RA (Restricted Articles) selection 'yes' in the FWD cargo bin. The CA (Captain) was not delivered a [Dangerous Goods Form] for HAZMAT prior to departure and was not notified of any RA. The Flight Crew asked the ramp personnel if any RA had actually been loaded into the FWD cargo bin. The ramp crew said there was a RA in the FWD cargo bin. The CA requested to be towed back to the gate to have the RA removed or to have a [Dangerous Goods Form] delivered to the cockpit. The ramp crew returned the aircraft to the gate; removed the RA then the flight departed.




Synopsis: ERJ-190 First Officer reported Restricted Article onboard without proper paperwork being filled out.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Was advised inflight by ZZZZZ controllers that they were unable to contact ZZZ Approach controllers. ZZZ had closed one hour early due to their reduced hours; however; there was no NOTAM in our flight plan that advised of the early closure. In addition to there being no NOTAM; ZZZ had also failed to 'release' the airspace over to the Center before going home. As a result; ZZZZZ could not clear us for an approach into the airspace. We were issued holding instructions until someone in ZZZ returned to the airport to release the airspace. Initially; ZZZZZ seemed unsure if ZZZ was even open or not. I told them that they had indeed closed based off of the remarks section of the AWOS. I knew that ZZZ closed at XA00 local based on recent flights. Plus; the airport itself (Runways and taxiways) would close later due to the construction that takes place at night. However; because there were no NOTAMs for either closure this time; I thought that they would be open. We had no alternate; as the weather was good; and as such had limited time to hold. Fortunately; we eventually got clearance to proceed into ZZZ.ZZZ ATC failed to release the airspace to ZZZZZ prior to signing off for the night. As a result; we were held until the airspace could be released. In addition; there were no NOTAMs noting the early closure of the ATC facilities at ZZZ.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported unable to land and entered holding due to the shortened hours of Approach Control at the destination. The destination Approach Control had failed to release the airspace before closing.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Shorts SD-360
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was performing my daily preflight inspection before my flight when 3 FAA guys approached me and said they are here to do a ramp check; so I told my Captain that the FAA is here so he could go talk to them. About 1 hour passed by and I went up to one of the FAA guys inspecting the plane and asked 'is everything all good on the plane and will we be able to fly' and he replied 'that's up to your Captain and company if they would want to continue the flight to airport ZZZZ'. So I walked over to my Captain and asked if everything was all good to do the trip to ZZZZ and he told me 'Yes everything is okay with the plane and I've called dispatch and we're good to go'. So thinking he was on the phone with the company which he didn't tell the company about the slip of items that needed to get fixed nor did he tell me. By the time we landed in ZZZZ my chief pilot called me and asked me why we flew with open maintenance items; I reply back 'The Captain told me everything was good and dispatch approved to go on this flight'. The Captain really just told them that there was a ramp check and nothing about the items they wrote down that needed to get fixed. So the company and I had no idea that they wrote items down and that the plane was grounded. If knowing that the plane was grounded and the flight was not approved I would not have gone on that flight and would have notified maintenance and my chief pilot on the issues they wrote down. The lack in communication from the captain created an issue that the company and I could have handled by just saying no and cancelling the flight if knowing that there was maintenance items that needed to be fixed. From me being a flight instructor and a professional pilot I would have told him that we couldn't continue the flight due to the issues written down about the aircraft.




Synopsis: The crew of an SD-3 flew a trip with open maintenance items.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LEBL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower LEBL
Second aircraft: A340
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the PNF and; at the gate; briefed the departure off of runway 25L in LEBL. The departure requires an 80 degree turn after takeoff for noise abatement. Company [procedure] mandates that the first turn airborne be hand-flown before engaging the autopilot. We departed behind a Heavy A340. At 500 feet; the first officer requested the heading change. I delayed responding to his request because of two factors: I felt we were too slow to initiate that turn as we were very heavy; and; as we initially climbed; we had encountered turbulence; thus at our heavy weight and slow speed wanted to make sure that we would have adequate speed and altitude before continuing the turn.[Suggest] choosing a different runway. Take the full 2 minutes behind a departing heavy.




Synopsis: B767-300ER Captain reported deviating from cleared departure track at LEBL because of lingering wake turbulence.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: After normal engine start; I instructed the line personnel to un-chock the airplane and disconnect the GPU. The lineman disconnected the GPU; he then returned to the front of the aircraft and instructed us to shutdown. After shutdown; I spoke with the lineman and was informed that 'the GPU had caught fire and damaged our aircraft'. Upon inspection; it appeared that the GPU plug had overheated and caught on fire. The damage to our plane was inspected and pictures were taken. The pictures were shared with maintenance and there was agreement that there was no structural damage; except possibly for one pin on the external power receptacle. The external power was deferred. I was given contact information for the FBO's station manager; and; at maintenance's request; I requested a written statement from the FBO personnel. The station manager contacted his supervisor and he was instructed to not provide us with any written statement at this time.




Synopsis: As he prepared to taxi; a FBO Lineman notified the BE-400XP Captain the GPU plug into the aircraft overheated and damaged the aircraft's ground electrical connector. The connector was deferred by Maintenance.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While attempting to land on Runway 17R at DEN; a B737 taxied in front of the landing runway on Taxiway ED; which is also Hotspot 1. We did not see the aircraft until about 100 ft. AGL; at the same time Tower directed us to go around. We flew right over the top of the taxiing aircraft. We executed the go around normally and came back around to land uneventfully.


Second narrative: We were on final approach to Runway 17R in DEN. At approximately 200 ft. AGL; we saw an aircraft taxiing in front of us on Taxiway ED - we were low enough that we could see its livery illuminated by our landing lights. After we flew over the top of him; we were directed by Tower to go around at about 100 ft. AGL. We executed an uneventful go around; came around and landed on Runway 16R. The area of Taxiway ED in question is designated as an incursion hotspot on the chart.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported a runway incursion on final approach that resulted in a go-around.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Fatigue; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain had a Vmo (Max Operating Speed) exceedance after leveling off from a climb in a clean configuration at 8;000 ft MSL. The alarm and I notified him and he corrected by reducing power and slowing down. The filed altitude for the flight was 7;000 [feet] but due to terrain we had to climb to 8;000 [feet]. The change to the flight plan and what we briefed on the ground caused distractions between MFD display; ATC instructions/communications; [and] flying the plane and aircraft control.  This was during leg 5 of a 5 leg day and we were in our 12th duty hour.The cause of this exceedance I believe is due to the lack of experience the captain has with this aircraft and the challenging operations at [Company]. The lessons I learned from this is to be more vigilant with monitoring the Pilot Flying during high workload and transitions. Example; leveling off from a climb.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported aircraft encountered Maximum Speed exceedance in cruise.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: A computer program designed to reduce fuel loads has caused weight and balance irregularities. Dispatcher had to manually check the performance landing to give to the crew due to this information not being included in the final weight and balance message. Cause; this is an unexplained company program built by non-experienced dispatchers or pilots. The intent is obvious but multiple problems including this are keeping the dispatcher from following flight progress and delaying flight releases. Safety has become a problem.




Synopsis: Dispatcher voiced concern regarding a new software program designed to reduce fuel loads claiming the attention required of this new system detracts from more important duties.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D21.TRACON, MI
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 9
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ARB
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight from ZZZ-YIP after the PETTE2 arrival we received a vector in IMC toward YIP. We broke out of clouds at 3;500 MSL and advised Controller. Controller then prompted us to look for YIP with a direction and distance. Seeing an airport in that direction with a runway we believed to be 23 we believed that we saw YIP. As we turned onto final we saw that there was no parallel runway and the localizer did not intercept.  Also we saw a smaller aircraft much closer to the airport on a base leg to the same runway. We immediately broke off the approach; climbed and turned and contacted Tower and then contacted approach for a vector back to YIP. Detroit Approach advised we were lined up for ARB and gave us a vector. We then had visual on YIP; notified ATC and were cleared for the visual 23 left once more. As me made our turn toward the airport the Captain continued to turn following a localizer that had captured what we later determined was the back course. I advised him the airport was to our left. It was hard to see in the haze. But he believed that airport to be DTW. I advised ATC we lost contact with YIP and would need a vector to ILS 23 left. We safely landed the aircraft.




Synopsis: Corporate Jet First Officer reported discontinuing a visual approach to YIP airport when it became apparent they lined up for the wrong airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D APF; Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working radar received approval for Aircraft X direct to APF from the east/southeast for a Visual Approach to the advertised runway on right traffic. APF Tower approved it so I cleared and switched the aircraft. Shortly thereafter; APF Tower launched IFR Aircraft Y off Runway 14 via automatic release with no regard to Aircraft X whom they had approved on the departure end of Runway 14 and were talking to. Loss of IFR separation and a possible NMAC was about to occur without action. APF Tower coordinated on the shout line that they were stopping Aircraft Y at 1;000 feet since Aircraft X was still at 2;000 feet; and that they would switch communications of Aircraft Y to me with no mention of visual separation being provided. I asked them to put Aircraft Y on a 060 heading to avoid and climb them to 2;000 feet since their assignment of 1;000 feet was below the MVA of 1;500 feet. I received communications with Aircraft Y and it appeared Aircraft X was no factor; but was immediately faced with a traffic alert with VFR traffic inbound to APF; 1 mile from the Class Delta airspace. No resolution was provided by APF Tower before switching Aircraft Y who had to take evasive action to avoid the VFR traffic which was described to me as 'head on; same altitude; less than 1 mile.' I do not believe a loss of IFR separation occurred; maybe because APF momentarily assigned Aircraft Y 1;000 feet; an altitude below the MVA before I had to advise otherwise. A NMAC was possible with the conflicting VFR traffic resulting from the turn; which was not resolved by APF prior to transfer of communications. APF Tower needs to be educated on not approving IFR inbounds direct if they will have departing traffic which will conflict. They also need to be educated on not assigning departing IFR aircraft an altitude below the MVA (this is not the first time this has happened). Additional education on selecting headings to avoid VFR traffic in their airspace; and not switching prior to conflict resolution.




Synopsis: RSW TRACON Controller reported Tower released a departure below the MVA and on a conflicting heading with other traffic.