elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flt level 240 we recognized we were in and out of icing conditions with one pack MEL'd. We noticed while flying that the anti-ice system came on. Then the cabin started to rise. We descended to FL220 in order to get out of ice conditions. We donned our masks. That wasn't low enough so we continued to 18000 ft but we received a Master Cabin Warning. As we descended the cabin pressure was still rising. The Captain called the Flight Attendant and we continued down to 11000 ft to stabilize the cabin. Still in ice we further went down to 9000 ft. We worked on the diversion items and diverted to ZZZ. No emergency was declared.Our crew communications was great. We constantly were sharing for a shared mental model. The Captain had everything seem seamless and did a fantastic job!


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported being unable to maintain cabin pressurization due to one air conditioning pack being inoperative and the anti-ice system in use.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On takeoff from 13R; the F/O (First Officer) was flying and commanded 'Gear Up'. Without recognition of my actions; as I was Pilot Monitoring; his first takeoff of our trip; I put the flap lever from Flaps 1 to Flaps Up. Immediately after this action; the F/O commanded LNAV as he had missed engaging it during his departure brief; and I missed it during my pre-departure cleanup of the MCP (Mode Control Panel). As I selected LNAV for him we got an 'Airspeed Low' aural warning. I immediately looked at the airspeed indicator and saw 155 with a yellow box around it. I told the F/O; Pilot Flying our airspeed was low and to accelerate; but did not recognize my error until we reached 1000 feet AGL and I went to put the flaps up. It was then I recognized the flaps were up and the gear was down. I raised the gear; the aircraft accelerated and the rest of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported inadvertently raising the flaps instead of the gear after takeoff.
Date: 201810
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Exactly what size device can be kept out during taxi and takeoff? We used to say iPads; Kindles; and phones but now the iPads have gotten larger. Our announcements say 'hand held.' Not 'hands' held. The [company] magazine only says 'small'; lightweight devices under 2 lbs. It is getting out of control. I was verbally abused again by a passenger today. As I tried to calmly explain to him what the restrictions were; he kept stating that no one has ever told him this. (He has been flying 3 years with the same large iPad -13x11- and never had anyone tell him to stow it). He continued to tell me that maybe everyone needs to be trained. Consistency is more important. I explained that electronic devices have changed dramatically over the last 5 years. Some Flight Attendants just don't want to hear it from people like him. I was abused. Several passengers apologized for his behavior. Our Manual indicates PEDs should be small. What is small? Apple iPads are acceptable. What size apple iPad? iPads can be 8x10 inches or larger. Is that too big? If not; why does a laptop have to be stowed? I've written [a report] before on this and received no guidance. At this point; we should restrict electronic devices size to a phone. That's it. People shouldn't be hooked up and unable to hear us anyway.Direction on what must be stowed or not needs to be concise and not left up to the Flight Attendant's discretion. Passengers need to know what the exact limits are. If not; we will continue to confuse and anger the very people we are trying to keep flying with us.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported confusion about the size of device that should be allowed to be out during taxi and takeoff.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While turning south from Taxiway B onto the ramp I noticed a (Service Driver) type vehicle traveling west on the vehicle service road. He was traveling at a high rate of speed and I mentioned it to the First Officer. As we approached the vehicle service road the driver passed through the yield sign painted on the road and drove right in front of our aircraft. I stopped the aircraft and we watched him drive by; looking to the south; paying no attention to us. After he passed by; the First Officer called Ground and told the Controller what happened.




Synopsis: Captain reported stopping the aircraft after a service vehicle failed to yield to their aircraft on a zipper road.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Airport Personnel
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier Ground Agent reported DG in [passenger] baggage. One 1.89L container of Round Up weed and grass killer found by TSA during security screening of passenger baggage. Passenger notified.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Agent reported DG articles found in passenger baggage by TSA screening.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working arrivals and departures on RWY 16L.  Aircraft X initiates a go around because he was too fast.  After handing off and vectoring the go around I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff and put Aircraft Z in position; as Aircraft A was now on final.  Aircraft Y asked to verify his takeoff clearance which was done.  Aircraft Z was cleared and Aircraft A put into position with Aircraft B on a 4 mile final.  I cleared Aircraft A for takeoff anticipating Aircraft Z will be 6;000 feet and airborne by the time Aircraft A starts to roll.  Aircraft B stated he needed to go missed because he's too high.  I elected to cancel the takeoff clearance for Aircraft A shortly after they started to roll as I was concerned he may become an issue with Aircraft B.  Aircraft A then taxied back to the end and took off.  The Front Line Manager (FLM) said I was clean; and nice job.If I had put Aircraft Y in position right after the go around of Aircraft X things wouldn't have ended up so tight.  As I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff I may have caused some confusion as I put Aircraft Z into position right behind him causing Aircraft Y to confirm he was cleared for takeoff; slowing their departure.  Additionally we were just about to go into a runway use plan which calls for the runway I was working to be departure only.  The tower FLM wanted the program to start earlier and traffic management in the TRACON didn't want to.  I think the TRACON was trying to hurry Aircraft X and Aircraft B in before the program started which resulted in unstabilized approaches and back to back pilot initiated go arounds.   I made a judgment call to cancel the takeoff clearance of Aircraft A since they just barely started to roll.




Synopsis: An SLC Controller reports of an operation that resulted in a go-around due to traffic on the runway and an arrival being higher than normal.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CRJ-900 aircraft returned to the gate with an apparent nose gear issue. After it was parked; the captain performed his walk-around and noticed a large flashlight jammed into the torque links of the nose gear. The aircraft had come in earlier as an inbound which I parked. During my walk around I didn't notice anything unusual with the nose gear as we really don't thoroughly check the under carriage. Especially with this aircraft since the nose gear sits really close to ground.




Synopsis: An aircraft ramp employee reports a CRJ-900 aircraft had returned to the gate with a nose gear issue. Captain performed a walk around and found a large flashlight jammed into the Nose Landing Gear (NLG) torque links.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While on a visual approach; Aircraft X had to initiate a go-around due to exceedance of tailwind limitations. Tower was reporting winds of 080/7. While on final; below 1;000 feet AGL; we had tailwinds in excess of 20 knots. Below 500 feet AGL; the tailwinds dropped to between 12-15 knots. Over the Runway 30 threshold; the winds were 080/18 knots; resulting in tailwind readout of 12 to 15 knots. We executed a go-around and returned for another approach. When we checked in again with Tower; they reported winds of about 080/7 again. We executed another approach but were forced to go-around again for excess tailwinds at 50 feet AGL. The tailwind readout was 15 knots. The wind displayed on the ND was 080/18 knots. We requested and received clearance for an approach and landing on Runway 12 which concluded without incident. I contacted Tower by phone after the flight to inquire as to what location on the airfield wind data they report to aircraft was collected. Tower Personnel were unaware of the location. This is the second such occurrence for me in Oakland in the last 12 months requiring a go-around for excessive tailwind component even though Tower was reporting winds within limits. After our two go-arounds and subsequent landing on Runway 12; aircraft were still departing Runway 30. I am writing this report because I believe the wind information being presented to Tower Personnel in OAK may not be from a location that represents conditions at the touchdown zone for that runway.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a go-around due to tailwind limitations and after landing at OAK airport; called Tower to question where the wind indicators were on the airport.  Tower personnel did not know the answer.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were just west/northwest of FRG airport. We were at 250 KTS and 4;000 FT. ATC clears us from 4;000 FT to 3;000 FT . I'm the Pilot Monitoring so I'm on the radio. I'm looking at the Class B chart on my iPad. I asked ATC; 'Doesn't this put us under the Class B airspace?' ATC responds; 'Yes; but you'll re-enter in about 1 1/2 miles.' Then he says; 'Can you just descend to 3;000 FT please.' On this aircraft; I can't slow down from 250 KTS to 200 KTS and descend and the Controller obviously needed us to descend now. We descended from 4;000 FT to 3;000 FT. I think the delay may have kept us in the Class B; but I can't be sure. There was no traffic on TCAS or any TCAS alert. We could visually see that there was no traffic under us; approaching us. I accepted the clearance because; first; it seemed like he needed us at 3;000 and I assume; given his response; that he sees something that we cannot so it's safer to descend. I could use some guidance; am I in violation of the FARs when a Controller asks me to descend below the Class B airspace over 200 KTS for a short period of time?




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being cleared to descend below JFK Class Bravo airspace at a speed above 200 KTS.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There were some mask compliance issues with passengers in XX1 and XX3 as well as YY1 and YY2.  Both separate parties did later comply. Row XX complied after I informed them I'd be issuing a warning if they continued to not comply. I told them that they will be banned from our airline if it continued.That was my 3rd time telling them and they complied. All parties eventually complied.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported passengers in 2 separate parties would not initially comply with face mask policy until given a warning.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The event in question transpired while taxiing out for departure at DTW. I was taxiing the aircraft east on runway 9L. Our instructions were taxi 9L M for a 21R take off. I was taxing the aircraft on 9L when I looked and was wondering why there was an Airbus taxiing down on M. That is when I quickly realized that I had taxied past M and was now approaching runway 21R and that Airbus was actually aborting its takeoff. I quickly stopped the aircraft and made a hard left turn towards M. We were told by ATC to call when we got to destination which I did. I mistakenly taxied the aircraft past the intersection I was supposed to turn left on. I mistakenly was looking at 21R thinking it was M. Which for that part of the airport they do parallel each other. I have operated numerous times out of DTW with those exact instructions and have never taxied past M. I will now verbalize each intersection as I pass them and cross compare to the 10-9 page. Please contact me if you have any further questions or concerns.


Second narrative: We were taxiing out to runway 21r via runway 9L and taxi way M. While using 9L for taxi I was briefing the departure for 21R. I looked up to see that we had passed taxiway M and was about to cross the hold short line for 21R. I verbalized to the captain that we needed to stop. At that point the captain hit the breaks to stop. From my point of view it looked like we stopped the aircraft about 5 feet from the hold short line. From a stopped position we were able to make a hard left turn and join taxi way M. We spoke to the DTW tower when we landed and they said that the ASDE system on the field showed us crossing the hold short line for 21R. In the future I will be more alert to my situational awareness and stay heads up as long as possible. It also might be better for DTW ground control to use taxiway V which parallels runway 9L for aircraft going to 21R instead of using a closed runway as a taxiway.


Synopsis: CRJ200 flight crew reports being cleared to Runway 21R at DTW via Runway 9L and M Taxiway. The Captain taxies past Taxiway M and the next intersection is Runway 21R where an incursion occurs; causing a rejected takeoff.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other pushback
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback attempted to start engine 1. No N1; no fuel flow. Started #2. Attempted to start #1 again. On third attempt no N1; no fuel flow; but we got a fire warning momentarily. We heard a bang and could see smoke. The fire warning went out instantly. We had fire department check for fire and proceeded to the gate.




Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported returning to the gate after experiencing engine start anomalies; including a momentary fire warning; during pushback.