elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHN.ARTCC, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHN
ATC / advisory: Center ZHN
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; MEL
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After 4:30 hours of flight; we had a 2;200 LB imbalance of fuel between the wing tanks. The center tank was empty for the flight and read zero always. We never suspected a fuel leak because the fuel flow was exactly even on each engine and the totalizer and calculated fuel levels were within 100 LBS of each other. Notwithstanding the possibility of a fuel leak; the aft engine fuel cross feed valve was deferred. How can this be a legal deferral for an ETOPS flight? It seems that this was an improper deferral and we should never have accepted it. The deferral of the crossfeed valve; I believe; is possibly the culprit in our unexplained fuel imbalance. We the flight crew are not given enough information concerning MELs and the maintenance compliance with them to make safe; sound; and informed decisions before accepting the aircraft. Instead; I feel we were duped into flying a fully loaded aircraft all the way to Hawaii.




Synopsis: A B737-300 First Officer reported flying the aircraft on an ETOPS flight with the fuel crossfeed valve MEL'ed and subsequently developing an unexplained 2;200 LB fuel imbalance which they could not equalize.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Rain; Turbulence; Windshear
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was serving as the First Officer/ pilot not flying in a Falcon 50 making an approach to land. During the final phase of landing; wind shear was encountered and the landing was rejected and a go around was initiated. [The] Tower notified the crew that the left wing made contact with the runway during the rejected landing/go-around sequence. It was elected to divert to [another airport] to attempt a landing where the winds favored the runway in use and wind shear was not reported. A landing was made on safely and there were no injuries on board. Review of crosswind and wind shear procedures for the Falcon 50 will be reviewed and discussed.




Synopsis: The non-flying pilot of a Falcon 50 reported that ATC advised them that their wing contacted the runway during a missed approach/go-around for wind shear. The crew elected to divert to an airport with more favorable winds where a successful landing was made.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After departure at ZZZ; we were given a left turn to the north and passed off to Approach. Coming through about 1000' AGL; we noticed a flock of what looked like turkey vultures circling at our altitude. As we continued our climb to our assigned 2000'; one of the birds maneuvered directly into our flight-path and hit the front of the aircraft. Upon impact; I requested an immediate turn-back to ZZZ (we were positioned for the downwind already).  My co-pilot; who was acting as Pilot Flying; was monitoring the engine parameters and we did not see any fluctuations. Approach asked if we required any assistance and as PIC; I deemed we did not; but needed landing priority. I noticed a burning smell from the bird possibly being ingested.  Approach passed us back to the tower and we landed with no issues. After we de-boarded our passengers; we did a quick visual inspection and determined that a large bird had entered the engine intake.  Operations; Management; and Maintenance were all contacted and the aircraft was grounded.


Second narrative: We took off out of ZZZ about 800' we were issued a turn to heading 360 in the turn about 1000' a large bird struck in the bottom of the prop arc in front of the engine intake. Right after it happened we smelled singed feathers and burned meat through the vents. There were no abnormal indications in the engine instruments so we decided to continue in the pattern and requested priority for a precautionary landing and remained within gliding distance of the airport at all times. After the precautionary landing we were able to taxi back to [FBO] and unload the aircraft there. On post flight inspection the was visible evidence that the engine had ingested a substantial amount of the bird after it struck the prop arc but the prop appeared to be undamaged.


Synopsis: PC-12 flight crew reported hitting a turkey on departure; then returning to airport as a precaution.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At the top of descent an odor was detected in the main cabin. A Flight Attendant localized the smell to about three rows forward of the exit row at the ceiling. No smoke. No heat was detected as the Flight Attendant used her hand to feel for warmth. The odor dissipated throughout the final 30 minutes of the flight; but still slightly discernible after landing. The odor was not smelled on the flight deck. The smell only appeared in the cabin. The smell could be described as overheated plastic or maybe plastic wire insulation. The odor was written up for maintenance.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a Flight Attendant notified them of an 'overheated plastic' type cabin odor at the beginning of descent. The odor dissipated 30 minutes later.  Maintenance was requested after shutdown.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach at around 5;000 FT MSL; the PASS DOOR warning light illuminated. We performed the memory action items; alerted the flight attendant and passengers to be seated away from the door and keep seatbelts on (sign already on due to landing); and ran the PASS DOOR Emergency Checklist. I advised ATC of our emergency; and seeing as how we were near landing; had Tower call our Company to inform them of the emergency. We landed without incident.




Synopsis: DHC-8-300 Captain notes a PASS DOOR warning light illuminated during during approach passing 5;000 FT. The Emergency Checklist is consulted and the flight continues to a normal landing.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: With this pandemic situation many airports don't have Ramp Control open and when Tower instructed us to stay with them we assumed ramp was closed and never called them since it was almost mid night; also the airport page doesn't clarify Ramp Control has to be contacted to enter the gate just for pushback and since Tower never instructed to contact anybody it makes the situation a little confusing.As we landed Tower told us to taxi to the ramp and remain on the frequency with them; we did as instructed and never changed to Ramp Control as we taxi to the gate; we stopped short of Gate XX at Spot XX noticing there wasn't any ground crew at the gate; we tried to contact operations; but they never answer the radio call; finally a Ground Agent showed up and instructed us to move over to the next terminal to Gate XXX. The Captain made a small turn and taxi to the gate with no issues.


Second narrative: Looking at the airport chart the labeling of the X terminal is unclear and somewhat hidden. On the ground the X terminal gates only have numbers and not labeled with X. Also I would suggest the ramp frequency be added to the ramp chart to make it clear. On landing in LGA we told ground we are going to Gate XXX and Ground Control instructed us to taxi Bravo; Echo; Alpha to the ramp. We tried to call company operations numerous times and never got an answer. Given that it was almost midnight we assumed that the ramp was closed And we were to taxi in with ground. Looking at the ramp diagram the gates are quite confusing and we mistakenly taxied to the entrance of Gate XX but it was actually the X terminal not the Y terminal. A ramp worker came over and directed us to turn around and go to other gates. We contacted Ground Control to let them know and they advised us we should have called Ramp Control. Once back on Taxiway A we contacted Ramp Control and got clearance into the gate. Ramp Control informed us that they had been trying to get a hold of us.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported taxiing to the gate at LGA airport without contacting Ramp Control. The crew cited as contributing factors a confusing ramp diagram and the expectation that Ramp Control was closed due to the pandemic situation.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDV
Second aircraft: Military Transport
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft Y was flying south in front of us quite a distance (approx 10-15 miles).  ADS-B in data from my Garmin GDL50 and Foreflight stated he was -200ft below us.  It appeared he was at our elevation or maybe slightly higher; but was hard to tell for sure due to the distance and size of the aircraft.I flew along north of PUB as Aircraft Y made a right hand turn to line up with a runway at COS.  I was thinking about wake turbulence from their aircraft; but with the data I had; we were above them and should be no factor.  A few minutes later we hit severe wake turbulence causing the airplane to violently roll to the left while losing altitude.  I reacted quickly and kept the airplane level and under control.  There were no injuries or damage; but there certainly could have been as my passenger hit their head on the interior.As Aircraft Y approached COS; their ADS-B still said they were level with us but COS would have been a couple thousand feet below.  So something is amiss with either [their] ADSB or the radar rebroadcast.

Callback: Reporter stated the other aircraft was a large four-engine transport.



Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot reported encountering wake turbulence from another aircraft in the vicinity of COS airport.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TRI.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D TRI
ATC / advisory: TRACON TRI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While descending into TRI for the approach to Runway 5 we encountered IMC between 7;000 feet thru 3;000 feet; we activated wing/cowl anti-ice and were in icing conditions for an estimated three to four minutes. The approach to Runway 5 was VMC; after exiting the runway I noticed an unusually heavy amount of ice on the windshield wiper and commented on it; mentioning the tail may have accumulated ice. My First Officer conducted the post flight and confirmed tail icing about one half inch in thickness on all forward tail surfaces. Both he and I took pictures.We are told this aircraft will not ice on the vertical or horizontal stabilizer. We were in icing conditions for a couple minutes and acquired more ice than I've seen on this aircraft; probably in the 11 1/2 years I've flown it. Had we been holding in these conditions for any period of time we might have encountered a major problem.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported noting a significant amount of ice accumulation on tail surfaces after landing at TRI.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We received clearance to takeoff on Runway 28L. Another aircraft was cleared for takeoff on 28R immediately after we were cleared. I would say the aircraft on 28R commenced takeoff roll 10 seconds after us. Winds were 340/20. Our departure was the OFFSHORE 9 which is an RNAV Departure. At approximately 1000 ft; we received a TCAS RA 'Maintain Vertical Speed' from the aircraft that departed right behind us. We complied with the RA and it soon went away as the other aircraft turned away to the right. We informed Departure Control of the RA. We were tracking LNAV guidance throughout the incident. I believe it is possible for this to occur with these crosswinds if the aircraft departing 28R are cleared immediately preceding a departure from 28L. If the aircraft on 28R is on a departure which requires runway heading until 400 ft; it is possible for the winds to push the aircraft into the TCAS bubble of the aircraft to the left. We were on an LNAV ground track (not drifting). If the aircraft on the 28R was on the AFIVA 1 (runway heading to 520 ft); it will immediately drift after takeoff towards the aircraft on the left.




Synopsis: Departures from Runways 28L and 28R at SFO have the potential for conflict and the resulting RA when a strong crosswind is blowing. One departure is an RNAV track and the other is a runway heading. The aircraft departing in heading mode does not correct for drift and may be blown close to the track of an aircraft on an RNAV departure which is corrected for wind drift.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: YMMM.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Center YMMM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were assigned; and wrote down Dosel departure [and] cleared to 5;000 feet. The other IRO also copied the same clearance. The Dosel and the Bryson departure have a similar turn and it wasn't until passing ALBAK waypoint that the controller asked what departure we were on and issued a heading of 270. Communication at times can be an issue; PDC is an excellent way to close that weak link.


Second narrative: There is a problem with the way Melbourne delivers clearances and how pilots copy and interpret the clearance. Here is a typical clearance: cleared to ZZZ via dosel maintain 5000 dosel 9 departure freq 118.9. Note how the dosel fix is mentioned first and then the departure sid later which is different from the United States. This clearance crews have no problem with.Here is the clearance that gets crews in trouble departing runway 16: cleared to ZZZ via dosel maintain 5000 bison 5 departure frequency 118.9. Crews hear via dosel and assume that is the dosel 9 sid and it is not. Further for some reason the bison 5 never gets written down. Maybe because of the heavy accent and format are different. I have talked with three crews who have been charged with a pilot deviations coming out of Melbourne. All crews flew the dosel 9 and should have flown the bison 5!


Synopsis: Air carrier flight Crew reported a track deviation due to confusion with the departure clearance delivery format.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Go-around
ATC / advisory: Tower MMMX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had to do a go-around at MMMX Runway 5R from about 500 AGL. The preceding airplane missed a turn-off. The go-around and missed were flown manually and without event. Once the airplane was turned away from terrain we reset automation; ran checklists; etc.I bring this up because the Tower issued us an immediate 30-degree right turn. This aims the airplane toward rapidly rising terrain and takes it off the missed approach course. Radios are saturated at MMMX and there are language considerations. This worked out fine. There's potential for a crew to be confused; aimed at terrain; and low. Maybe include this in videos or other products? Since we're opening an Aircraft X base; it's conceivable that Aircraft X crews will see MMMX with more regularity. Of course; there's an argument to do nothing too. Are any of these factors different from any other missed approach briefing anywhere else? My job isn't to make those decisions; but to bring these factors up to the attention of appropriate parties.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported while on a go-around; ATC issued an immediate turn off the missed approach procedure and towards rapidly rising terrain. Pilot stated concern with language barrier and procedure could result in confusion and a terrain event.