elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just arrived in the Tower Cab; assumed responsibility for the CIC position. Right after I got a briefing  I became aware that the Local Controller had a Remos departing Runway 9 from a touch and go (left traffic Runway 9) and a PA28 executing a climb out (missed approach off Runway 33 localizer approach) that placed the aircraft in very close proximity; airborne near the intersection of Runway 9 and Runway 33. I observed the PA28 passing either directly above; or above in very close lateral proximity (I estimate about 200 FT) above the Remos who was airborne (probably 75 FT above Runway 9) over Runway 9 on the upwind leg following the touch and go. The Remos became airborne; descended as the PA28 passed; and then continued in the traffic pattern. I asked the Local Controller about the event and he indicated that the PA28 was doing to fly the Loc 33 missed approach; the implication was that; the missed approach was the method he was using to separate the two aircraft; even though the PA28 would likely overfly the Remos as the Remos was departing. I listened to the DALR recording of the event; and discovered that the Local Control had cleared the PA28 for the OPTION on Runway 33 at the same time the Remos was on Runway 9. Both controllers indicated they were NOT aware of any distractions in the operation during the event. Brief controllers on required separation for intersecting runway operations. There is also a lack of understanding whether the operation would have technically been legal if the PA28 has not been cleared to use Runway 33 (which is what I believe the Local Controller was planning to use as separation between these two aircraft); and had just flown his missed approach over the Remos.




Synopsis: Tower CIC witnessed a conflict event involving departing traffic and an aircraft on a missed approach; the reporter noted the Local Controller failed to ensure separation.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We experienced smoke in the cockpit and a burning electrical smell. Shortly thereafter; we experienced multiple system failures and ECAM warning messages. One of which was to land ASAP. The First Officer and I donned O2 masks and started emergency procedures. I [notified] ATC and requested to divert to the nearest suitable airport. After following checklist guidance; ECAM procedures and applying some systems knowledge; the smoke subsided; but the odor remained.Communication with the flight attendants was established and the plan to divert was communicated to the flight attendants. I asked them to prepare the cabin for an immediate landing; which they did. A diversion message was sent to Dispatch advising them of our situation and landing plans. I asked them to advise ZZZ operations of our impending arrival; which they did. A normal landing at ZZZ was made; and after communicating with the fire department; we deplaned. We asked that the passengers deplane; but leave their baggage in the overhead bins; which was later retrieved for them. No injuries were reported; the First Officer and I were quick to don our O2 masks; and neither of us felt any ill effects from the smoke. Contract Maintenance quickly arrived at the airplane and found that the number 1 battery had overheated and was likely the reason we had smoke in the cockpit. One of the ECAM actions had me turning off the number 1 battery; and in hindsight; this action probably contributed to our success more than anything else. Suggestion: Replace NiCad batteries with Lead Acid batteries.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported diverting due to smoke in cockpit and uneventful landing.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing out of Gate X at ATL; we completed engine start and were cleared to join the left lane southbound. Weather was restricted visibility in moderate rain. As we approached the first vehicle lane crossing; the First Officer called out 'Look out' and 'Stop.'  I looked to the right and coming out of the corner of the right windshield I saw a tug pulling baggage carts; approaching at very high speed.  I braked to a quick stop.  We reported the near collision to Ramp Control.  We were not able to record the identification number on the vehicle as it was moving too fast.  There were no injuries or other adverse consequences.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a ground conflict with a baggage vehicle at ATL airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On Taxiout [at] ZZZ on a Taxiway; the left main wheel separated and the tire blew. Hydraulic leak; unable to taxi. Deplaned aircraft with buses on taxiway.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a main wheel failed during taxi.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback and an uneventful taxi to [the] runway; we initiated our takeoff roll. Everything was normal until a few seconds after the 80 KTS call. At that point we noticed a small variation of aircraft thrust followed by STAB TRIM aural warning as well as a red boxed STAB TRIM indication on the EAD and a red boxed STAB TRIM number on the ANU indicator. At that point I decided to abort the takeoff fearing a possible runaway stab trim situation. Upon exiting the runway; we also noticed that all of our takeoff speeds along with all other FMS Data had been cleared from the MCDU's. We contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control and the decision was made to return to the gate for deplaning and aircraft swap. The trip progressed normally after that; and we arrived at our destination about 75 minutes behind our original scheduled time.


Second narrative: Duplicate by Person 1.


Synopsis: After the 80 KTS call; a B717 EAD alerted STAB TRIM; the aural STAB TRIM warning sounded and the ANU indicated red STAB TRIM; so the takeoff was rejected and aircraft returned to the gate where it was removed from service.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Our aircraft had the Right Generator deferred inoperative which required the APU to be run continuously. After setting takeoff thrust; we received an EICAS message 'LT GEN DRIVE' and we elected to abort the takeoff. The abort occurred below 80 KTS and the flight attendants were advised to remain seated. After clearing the runway we got another EICAS 'EQUIP COOLING.' We first verified with the flight attendants that the situation was under control and then ran the check lists for the abort; brake temperature check; generator drive and the equipment cooling messages. We requested a return to the gate and advised Maintenance Control and Line Maintenance of the write ups. The aircraft was later taken out of service.


Second narrative: We then returned to the gate for maintenance.


Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew; dispatched with the right Generator deferred inoperative; rejected their takeoff below 80 KTS when they received a left generator drive EICAS message. Upon clearing the runway they received an equipment cooling EICAS message.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight the Mechanic was in cockpit still doing his work. I visually verified that the right cowling was locked but did not physically verify. After Mechanic finished I continued my paperwork check and started the aircraft. When I was 200 ft. airborne; the cowling started to open partially. I requested to return to the runway and land without declaring an emergency. I was distracted which caused an interruption of flow during preflight. I called Dispatch; Director of Maintenance and Director of Operations to inform them of the situation. I should preflight thoroughly and avoid distractions. If interrupted; start over and verify with check list.




Synopsis: C208 Pilot reported the right cowling partially opened after takeoff.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing rollout
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On touchdown on Runway XX; I applied too much right brake; resulting in the turning of the aircraft to the right. The direction of the aircraft was pointed too far to the right to correct; given the speed; before running off of the runway. The aircraft came to a smooth; full stop in the grass to the right of the runway. ATC asked me if I was alright; and asked if I thought I could taxi back to the runway. I replied that I did (considering that the aircraft didn't hit any objects and came to a smooth stop); and taxied back onto the runway. I was then given clearance to taxi back to parking. I was uninjured and the plane wasn't damaged in any way. The airport wasn't damaged in any way either.




Synopsis: Student Pilot reported a loss of control during landing.
Date: 201506
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Lifevest/Jacket
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [Flight Attendant] 'A' asked 'C' to call to the back to see how many spare life vests were on board. 'B' said there were 10. 'A' then informed 'C' that on the previous flight we had 12 lap children but only 10 spare life vests. On the flight in question; we were told before boarding there would be 12 lap children on board. All 3 flight attendants were very aware and concerned about making sure no 2 lap children were in the same row so that everyone had an oxygen mask. All 3 flight attendants checked to ensure that there were no 2 lap children on the same row. We were so conscience about the amount of families coming on board and trying to accommodate everyone's seating needs and requirements that it never occurred to us about being short on spare life vests. When we arrived in (city); and the ops agent at that destination made us aware of the mistake; we were very concerned and all said that we realized this needed to be written up.




Synopsis: Following a flight with many children on board; the flight attendants realized that they did not have the required number of spare life vests on board.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SMF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Load Planning called Dispatch shortly after takeoff and said that a flight had illegal weights. She said that finalized weights showed 91 passengers; seven first class and 84 in coach. These weights were finalized by the computer and sent to the flight crew. Then passenger service changed the passenger count which invalidated weights. However; the flight had been out too long so Load Planning didn't get an invalid message alert.Once the Load Planner saw the new count she realized the flight was tail heavy and called Dispatch. Dispatch contacted the flight and asked them to move one passenger to first class and to block row 34.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher was advised that a flight had taken off with incorrect final passenger counts and the aircraft was technically tail heavy. The flight crew was advised to move passengers and block off the aft row of coach seats.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Distribution
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency

Narrative: During a maintenance test flight the pilot's ESS BUS Circuit Breaker (CB) popped removing all essential power from the pilot's and copilot's flight instruments. I conducted the QRH ESSENTIAL BUS FAILURE - DC POWER LOSS Emergency Checklist which restored all DC Essential power. I declared an emergency for electrical power interruption; advising future communications may not be available; and of my intention of returning to our departure airport.I then configured the aircraft for landing early with Gear DOWN; flaps 20 [in anticipation of a possible recurrence]. Five to eight minutes later the ESS BUS CB popped again. Upon reaching the FAF I again reset the ESS BUS CB for landing and communications and landed without further failures.




Synopsis: While conducting a maintenance test flight the pilot of a Lear 35 suffered the loss of DC Essential bus electrical power. Although able to regain power through QRH procedures allowing the declaration of an emergency the bus failed again enroute back to the departure airport. Another reset of the offending Circuit Breaker (CB) permitted communications during the uneventful landing.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLE.TRACON, OH
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cruising at six thousand as assigned in IMC in relatively smooth air we encountered a large downdraft of building storm that was not on our NEXRAD as there was very little if any rain. ATC also did not advise of any condition such as this. Aircraft [was] put into 1;500 FPM dive and 50 degree bank. This upset the autopilot which we promptly disconnected. Upon recovery we were almost one thousand feet below assigned altitude. Advised ATC of the deviation and issued Pirep to ATC.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported an upset from a building storm that resulted in a 50 degree bank and 1;500 FPM rate of descent. Aircraft control was recovered after a loss of 1;000 feet.
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Landing Light
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight ABB from ZZZ was 6 hours late into ZZZ1. Upon arrival; there were 4 other flights on the ground and crews were scattered serving other flights. Aircraft was delayed marshalling into gate and also for servicing until crews could finish other flights. This aircraft turned Flight CDDD to ZZZ3 and as soon as a crew was available they began loading. The jet bridge had been removed by the time the crew began uploading; but it was only about 10 minutes to complete loading due to light load. As the lead was preparing to connect his headset to the aircraft; the flight crew flashed the nose gear light trying to get the attention of the ground crew. This temporarily blinded the lead who was unraveling a cord from the comm headset. He proceeded to attach the cord when the light was flashed a second time; hitting his eyes again. He stepped away from the aircraft to get out of the light and when he went to connect the headset again they flashed a third time. This nonstandard procedure has been reported before with no feedback or remedy. Employee was unable to continue working [the] flight due to spotty vision from nose gear light.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported that while attempting to connect the headset to the aircraft; the flight crew flashed the nose gear light three different times directly into the crew member's eyes; resulting in vision impairment.