elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 30 min into the flight; during cruise @ FL360; the #2 autopilot clicked off; accompanied by ECAM alert the #2 INS had faulted/failed. After stabilizing the aircraft; and engaging #1 autopilot; we completed the INS Fault QRH procedure. The First Officer (FO) was pilot flying; and reported he had lost all airspeed info; the flight director; and other info on his flight display in addition to that normally associated with loss of INS. Reviewing QRH for ADC failure; many listed items were similar to those lost on the FO display. Concerned that we may have also lost the ADC; (although we did not get an ECAM alert); the FO selected #3 on his NAV switching panel to regain lost display items. In reviewing QRH procedures for a failed ADC; loss of RVSM capability was a result of failure. We notified ATC of our issues; and to be safe; elected to descend from RVSM airspace as required of a ADC failure. We inspected and found no associated CB's open. We then informed [dispatch] and [maintenance] of our issues; and requested [dispatch] to recalculate fuel burn for continued flight to [ZZZ] @FL270. Receiving the new fuel data; and comparing to our FMS calculations; continuing to [ZZZ] would have us arriving with 11;000lbs. FOD. [ZZZ] ATIS was reporting ILS 32 approaches in use due to winds. Also; we were having to divert course due to en route weather. Given all these factors; I elected to divert to [ZZZ1]; due to limited fuel reserves and the possibility of delays upon arrival at [ZZZ]. Great support from center; [dispatch] and excellent job by FO.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported diverting to an alternate after loss of multiple components resulting from failure of #2 INS.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During descent we were given a clearance to depart ZZZ [VOR] on heading of 230 and descend to 8;000 feet.  Concurrently another Company aircraft; (Flight ABC) was given a descent clearance to cross 15 SW of ZZZ [VOR] at 8;000 feet.  They were subsequently given a frequency change.  At ZZZ [VOR] we took up a 230 heading. At approximately 15 SW of ZZZ [VOR] at 10;000 feet; the Controller asked if we were going to comply with the 8;000 feet restriction 15 SW of ZZZ [VOR].  I told him no; we were already at that point and we had not been given that clearance.  The Controller believed he had given us the same clearance as (Company Flight ABC).  He then gave me a frequency change and no further mention of the erroneous clearance.


Second narrative: On the ZZZZZ 5 Arrival into ZZZ [airport]; approaching ZZZ [VOR] ATC gave us 'Depart ZZZ [VOR] heading 230 descend and maintain 8;000 feet. We were complying with the clearance and a few minutes later ATC questioned if we were going to make it to 15 Miles South of ZZZ [VOR] at 8;000 feet. We advised that that was not our clearance and ATC issues the clearance of cross 15 miles south of ZZZ [VOR] at 8;000 feet; however; upon issue of said clearance we were already at 15 miles and at 9;000 feet; so we advised that we were unable. Of note; visibility was poor and ATC radio was highly congested with numerous VFR traffic.  I think our call sign just got confused with someone else. We did hear a (Company Flight ABC) also get a similar clearance before the confusion occurred.    I think the airspace was just too saturated and the congestion is what caused the mistakes.  We were never issued that clearance; nor did we ever read it back.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported ATC gave them a clearance meant for another company flight.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground control gave us a clearance to taxi via B; B2 and cross Runway XY at B2.  We headed south on B; turned right (west) onto B2 to cross runway XY.  As we were on B2 crossing runway XY; I heard ground controller state 'aircraft on B4 stop; hold position; aircraft on B4 stop immediately.'  We were on B2 but I had been listening to other calls on ground and no one should have been on B4; so I thought he might be talking to us (this took less than one second) and as I continued to scan ahead I saw a helicopter north bound on runway XY low level. (I believe the helicopter had come from his base eastbound; overflew taxiway A and then turned low level northbound on runway XY).The pilot flying and I both hit the brakes immediately as the helicopter passed in front of us. Probable cause of near collision; ground controller gave a us taxi clearance with runway crossing instructions; the tower controller gave the helicopter a clearance to depart north bound on runway XY and failed to realize we were taxiing.




Synopsis: A Check Airman in a Cessna 172 reported that when as they started to cross a runway; a helicopter flew at low level in front of them causing a NMAC.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Windshear
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower EGLL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared from holding at OCK and told to hold 220 KTS which we did; shortly thereafter we heard ATC asking flight behind us in the hold if they could take 27L LOC approach which they accepted. We were vectored for a relatively short EGLL approach slowing to 180 KTS assigned; and then given a heading to intercept the 27R LOC cleared to descend via the glide slope. Shortly thereafter [we were] told to hold 160 KTS to a four mile final. At approximately 5.5 miles we were closing in on the aircraft ahead of us and encountered wake turbulence. I decided to start slowing to prevent further closure and to mitigate the wake turbulence. At 4 mile final we were at 150 KTS IAS with winds aloft at 2;000 FT variable 300 - 330 degrees at 30 to 42 KTS. ATC had not provided adequate spacing and said they had to vector that aircraft off the final. When we landed the Tower Controller ask us if we maintained our speed on final and not knowing what they were getting at; said yes we were; they then said paperwork would 'need to be filed' whatever that means? Because we were close to the Outer Marker and having to aviate; navigate; do landing checklists; we were not talking to Approach Control; we contacted the Tower at the 4 DME final and were not cleared to land until 400-500 FT because the aircraft ahead of us was still on the runway!




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported deviating from assigned airspeed on arrival to EGLL when he encountered wake vortex and chose to increase spacing.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 30 minutes after takeoff I was working the aft end of the beverage cart as Flight Attendant #2. Flight Attendant #1 summoned Flight Attendant #4; who was working the forward end of the beverage cart; to come up front. Upon receiving information #4 hustled back to tell me our pilot was ill and we would be landing soon. As we hurried back with the beverage cart we felt the airplane begin a fairly steep descent. Flight Attendant #1 made a P.A. apparently letting the passengers know we were landing. I however could not hear what was said due to the very loud cabin noise that is typical on the MD80 aircraft. We did our safety checks and took our jump seats. It felt like we landed approximately 15 minutes after I received the information regarding the emergency. A medical team met our flight and our First Officer was immediately taken off. Our Captain made a P.A. explaining the medical situation and then left so as to accompany the First Officer to the hospital. The most troubling issue for me was not being able to hear the P.A. In fact I did not realize that a P.A. had been made at all due to the extremely loud cabin and engine noise that are part and parcel of working a MD80 aircraft.




Synopsis: MD80 Flight Attendant describes an emergency diversion to obtain medical attention for an ill First Officer.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed with full wing fuel and 4.5k fuel in center tank. Both center pumps were turned on. At level off at FL340 noticed Fuel Config EICAS message; center fuel was at .2 so turned pumps off. Noticed Fuel Config Eicas message remained on. Upon examination of Fuel Panel; noticed that there was 35.5 in left tank; and 39.5 in right tank. Total fuel indicated correctly for fuel used. It appears all center fuel was consumed by right engine. We then balanced fuel and flight was normal from that point on. System was written up in logbook.




Synopsis: A B767-300 pilot reported that center tank fuel was used primarily by the right engine leaving the amount of fuel in the wing tanks unbalanced.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 MAX 9
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During push back; the tug driver informed me that the tow bar shear pin had broken.  This had occurred in a benign and gentle manner; without any perceivable noise or vibration on the flight deck; or abnormal movement of the aircraft.   I set the parking brake and called ZZZ line maintenance.  I explained the situation; and asked if this required an inspection or logbook entry (we were on a MAX) and was told 'no' on both counts.  My first officer looked up 'tow bar breakage' in the FOM; and read to me the section that states 'an info only write up shall be made and the flight may continue as long as no aircraft damage is suspected'.  Unfortunately; that paragraph applies to the 737-NG; but not the MAX.  The aircraft should have been inspected; a discrepancy written up in the logbook; and subsequently signed off.Maybe a reminder in the form of a bulletin; for both pilots and mechanics; or a brief mention in the next quarterly CBT (Computer Based Training) to emphasize the difference in policy for the MAX.




Synopsis: Captain reported a broken shear pin on the tow bar during push back and was incorrectly advised that a log book entry was not required by maintenance.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight attendants asked passenger to wear mask.  Initially complied but kept removing mask.  Called for Customer Service.  Customer Service agent asked passenger to wear mask.  Passenger removed mask as soon as agent walked away.  Customer Service Supervisor called.  Passenger removed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger was removed from flight due to non compliance with face mask policy.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 15 NM from ZZZ and deviating through a line of thunderstorms; we smelled an odor of electrical burning. I called the flight attendant to check the cargo compartment; she called back that she didn't see anything in the cargo compartment but there was a strong odor of an electrical burning smell in the galley area. We [advised ATC] and elected to continue to [our destination] instead of returning. I sent an ACARS message to Dispatch [of our situation]; contacted ATC and requested direct to [our destination]. We called company on inbound frequency and informed them of the nature of our emergency. We informed the flight attendant the TESTS information. We told ATC we were going to stop on the runway; evacuate the passengers; and requested runway 13R. We did not complete AOM procedures as there wasn't enough flight time remaining needing to prepare for the approach; landing; and evacuation. The approach and landing were normal. We stopped on 13R and initiated the emergency evacuation. CFR was at the aircraft as we were stopping the aircraft; they had a ladder available and assisted deplaning. There were three minor injuries; none requested medical assistance. Passengers were corralled in the grass area next to the runway and returned to the terminal in buses.


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


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported smelling an odor of electrical burning. They advised ATC of their situation and evacuated the aircraft after landing; resulting in several minor injuries.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were being vectored from downwind to base for Runway YY. We were slowing preparing for a visual approach and I called for flaps 1. The pilot monitoring; First Officer; selected flaps 1. The LE SLAT DISAGREE EICAS message and light illuminated. We told the Tower and they gave us vectors around the airport so we could work the problem. I was the flying pilot. I called for the LE Slat Disagree Checklist and the First Officer worked the problem. We also verified the non normal landing distance for flaps less than full. We declared an emergency and asked for Runway XX because it was the longest. The Company was contacted via ACARS in the short time available about our emergency. We completed the non normal checklists and landed on Runway XX without incident. We were able to taxi on our own to the ramp without further assistance. We talked to the Crash First Rescue Commander on a discrete frequency and told him we no longer needed assistance. The non normal was written up in the logbook and maintenance was notified. The First Officer did a fantastic job of managing the checklist and situational awareness during a very busy phase of flight.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B757-200 LE SLAT DISAGREE EICAS alerted during landing preparations so an emergency was declared. During a vector delay the LE Slat Disagree Checklist was completed; followed by a normal landing.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying south of the Class C airspace; and under Class B airspace at about 1200 feet I got an ADS-B collision alert for an aircraft approaching from a 7 o'clock position. I adjusted course to increase separation. The other aircraft appeared to adjust its course to intercept mine as its altitude decreased towards mine. I adjusted course again to make mine almost 90 degrees to my original 270 heading. The aircraft's course depiction followed and appeared to be closing. I made a rapid descending 180 degree turn to visually locate the airplane. I immediately located the Cessna who did appear to be following me. After my turn and descent avoided risk of collision; the aircraft then turned north and entered Class C airspace. I noted my position was very close to the Class C boundary and immediately turned back away to avoid entering the airspace. I did not enter Class C but was uncomfortably close. As I proceeded to get further separation and continue in a generally westerly direction I noted the airplane turned again and appeared on a parallel path but at a higher altitude.  As it was faster it eventually passed heading towards another Class D airspace. This type of event has happened before; but rarely; when other aircraft seem to interested in the slow flying SeaRey. It seems to be happening with increasing frequency now that ADS-B is more commonly in use. The hazard of aircraft locating and inappropriately following other aircraft has not been addressed. Masking aircraft specific ADS-B information would eliminate some of the close curiosity encounters.




Synopsis: A pilot of a amphibious kit airplane reported another aircraft intentionally tried to fly towards them to look at their aircraft.