elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Drain
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arriving at the aircraft I began my first flight of the day preflight actions in the cockpit and my First Officer left the cockpit to do a preflight walk around inspection. He returned rather quickly and advised me that there was a significant fuel leak/spill underneath the aircraft. I immediately shut down the APU; had external power removed; and instructed my flight attendants to stop what they were doing and exit the aircraft as soon as possible. I then went outside of the aircraft to see what was going on. When I arrived I observed a ground crew from the fuel vendor company who had already set up the apparatus that is used to contain fuel spills. I observed a significant fuel spill that was approximately six feet in diameter. I also observed a steady stream of fuel actively leaking from the fuel sump underneath the center fuel cell. [The mechanic] was holding a tool and beginning to work on stopping the leak. He was able to stop the flow of the leak fairly quickly. I then asked the mechanic what was the issue. He stated that it was in fact the fuel sump that had caused the problem. I asked him if he intended to write that up in the AML. He said no and he stated that a write up was not necessary. I told him that I disagreed and that I intended to write it up myself and so I did. The same mechanic completed the sign off process and we were eventually cleared by Operations to continue. The rest of the flight operation was without any further issues. This is completely unacceptable. There is no way that any certificate holding professional should ever allow something like this to go undocumented. This lackadaisical approach to maintenance and safety is an outrage. This should not be tolerated and it speaks volumes about the approach to maintenance and safety that unfortunately I am seeing far too many times as the extreme; undue pressure builds on this beleaguered workforce to meet operational metrics.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported a steady stream of fuel was leaking from a fuel sump.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With battery in the override position; APU door open; APU not running. Noticed white smoke followed by flames coming out of the [APU] tail pipe. APU fire bottle was discharged; did not extinguish flames. Fire Dept. shot dry chemicals followed by foam to extinguish flames. No fire warning in cockpit at any time.

Callback: Reporter stated the Gulfstream G-200 (Astra Galaxy) had been totally dark (no electrical power) for 20-30 minutes. They were waiting in the cockpit for fueling to finish because they are not allowed to start the APU during fueling operations. Fueler saw bright puffs of white smoke coming out from the APU tailpipe that erupted into flames. Later; after the Fire Department applied Dry Chemicals and foam to extinguish the fire; Maintenance removed the Honeywell APU which was immediately sent back to Honeywell for assessment before company mechanics could determine cause for the tailpipe fire. Since then; he has not heard any information from Honeywell regarding the incident.  Reporter stated this was not the first time an APU tailpipe fire has occurred on company G-200 aircraft. His air carrier has since developed a QRH APU Tailpipe Fire Check procedure. The APU tailpipe exits at the end of the aircraft's fuselage; not underneath or on top.



Synopsis: Captain reported he was informed by a Ground Fueler during fueling operations that white smoke followed by flames were coming out of the APU tail pipe on their Gulfstream G-200 (Astra Galaxy) aircraft. The APU door was open; but the APU was not running. No Fire Warning in cockpit. Discharge of APU fire bottle did not extinguish flames.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SCT; Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X advised me that they might not make the inland restriction. I made the necessary point out and approval request. I instructed Aircraft X to climb and maintain 140. Aircraft X departed ONT and climbed 3;000 feet in approximately 5 NM; and with that rate of climb Aircraft X would meet all the MVA's (Minimum Vectoring Area) on the route. However; Aircraft X then slowed the rate of climb; climbing approximately 1;000 feet over the next 5 NM. When I observed that Aircraft X had reduced the rate of climb; I immediately turned the aircraft away from a higher MVA. I issued the turn and the aircraft began the turn before entering approximately 1/8 nm into the higher MVA; so I issued a low altitude alert as Aircraft X entered a 060 feet MVA at 055 feet MSL. After Aircraft X was above the MVA I cleared the aircraft to inland and Aircraft X flew the SID without further incident. I will issue a DVA (Diverse Vector Area) until the aircraft is above the MVA.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reported a widebody aircraft on departure procedure could not meet climb rate; resulting in entering a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An Embraer was on instrument approach at 3;000 FT. Numerous pilots began to report wind shear conditions on final. The Embraer requested Runway 15; however the airport was actively departing Runway 33. Pilot of the Embraer became irate and demanded Runway 15 and stated he intended to declare an emergency to get Runway 15. The Arrival Controller vectored other aircraft out of the pattern and flow and the Embraer on downwind for Runway 15 and coordinated with Tower to stop departures off Runway 33. When the Controller asked for emergency information (souls on board and fuel remaining) the pilot tried to retract the emergency and stated he did not declare. This was a disruptive and a possibly dangerous action by the pilot to circumvent orderly arrival and departures by other aircraft. Numerous aircraft were delayed due to this pilot's actions.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller expressed concern regarding an air carrier arrival that demanded other than the runway in use for wind considerations. The air carrier declared an emergency to obtain it and once approved; tried to rescind the emergency declaration.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-20 Pacer/PA-22 Tri-Pacer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Observer; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Finished maintenance on my airplane. Others in pattern so I went flying. While airborne; I heard others on the same frequency at a nearby airport. I decided to fly over there; too. 3 of us in the pattern; one full stop. I made a full stop; too; and decided to have lunch. There were no markings indicating field closed when we arrived. When we got ready to go; there were yellow 'x's at each end. There were persons preparing to fly kites at the airport apparently because the warm weather had made it unsafe to have the event as scheduled on the lake; on the ice. The other pilot spoke with the event coordinator and she told him she would stop the event long enough for him to takeoff. He departed before I arrived back at the airport. I called FSS to determine that there was a NOTAM in place and who had filed it. I got the initials of that person who was the airport manager. While searching for the airport manager for permission to takeoff; I discovered the event coordinator who related the previous takeoff circumstances. She told me it was fine for me to takeoff also and she would stop activities briefly for me as well. I took off from the far end of the airport. An individual on a golf cart was at that end; on the edge of the runway; about 500 feet from the end. I took off left of centerline to give him clearance. As I was passing him I banked slightly toward him to keep him in sight and to regain centerline. I used short field takeoff techniques so I estimate I was more than 100-200 feet above him when I passed. Evidently; I made him nervous because he mentioned on the radio that I had passed over his head. In retrospect; I should have stopped and shut down to coordinate with him. Further; I have been flying for nearly 60 years; including military and airlines and routinely asked permission to use closed airspace or facilities. But after the fact; I am unsure whether this person's permission and actions constituted legal permission.




Synopsis: PA-22 pilot reported being unsure about the legality of taking off from a closed airport.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SDM.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MMTJ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Filled VFR from ZZZZ to MMTJ. I was on with Mexico approach who told me contact MMTJ tower. I contacted Tijuana tower and they told me to report 3 miles out. I reported 3 miles out. They said I was cleared left base runaway 26r. I asked say runway assignment. They said 26r. I responded you mean runway 27? He said runway 26. I again responded 3 more time you mean runway 27? The tower said contact this frequency. So I did. The frequency was brownfield SDM. Brown tower then cleared me to land runway 26r. Before Tijuana tower handed me off I told the tower he was making a mistake. I really had no choice but to continue for runway 26r at Brown field. Any deviations I would have tried to make would have caused a traffic conflict as there were multiple targets on my TCAS. I felt as pilot in command; the safest course of action was to land at Brown field. I did not have a EAPIS (Electronic Advanced Passenger Information System) filled.




Synopsis: BE200 pilot reported filing a VFR flight plan to MMTJ from further south in Mexico. When MMTJ Tower was contacted for landing; the instructions were to enter a left base for Runway 26R. MMTJ only has Runway 9/27 and after several queries the reporter was switched to SDM Tower and cleared to land Runway 26R. No EAPIS had been filed for landing in the USA.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BTV.TRACON, VT
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BTV
ATC / advisory: TRACON BTV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X entered BTV radar east airspace from the west at 9000 ft. I informed the pilot to advise me of any approach request he might have and to descend and maintain 7000. Aircraft X requested lower altitude after a few minutes due to light ice accumulating. I then gave him the MVA altitude of 6500. I noticed he was not able to maintain his altitude and I gave him a further descent and a vector away from terrain depicted on the EOVM (Emergency Obstruction Video Map). I then noticed Aircraft X was turning towards terrain northwest bound and instructed him to fly northeast bound on a heading of 040 and asked 'how he was doing'. Aircraft X was able to get below the clouds and out of icing conditions away from terrain shortly thereafter.




Synopsis: BTV TRACON Controller reported that an aircraft being vectored at the MVA was not able to maintain altitude due to icing.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had taxied to the hold pad on Taxiway R holding short of 22L. The button to call the flight attendants quit working and we researched the MEL from that position. Once completed; I advised MDW ATC that we were ready for departure. We were told to hold short of 22L and I acknowledged. About two minutes later; Tower told us to pull all the way up to the hold line; which I acknowledged. We had another couple of feet to the line and the Captain moved up all the way as instructed. About a minute later; the Controller said to move all the way up as there was no more 'position and hold' and that 'we would be cleared from that point.' The Captain and I were not sure what he meant as we were as far forward as we could go unless cleared to cross; line up and wait; or cleared to take off. The Controller stated again in a raised voice to; 'Pull all the way up. If you want to depart you have to play the game!' I asked if he wanted us to enter the runway in confusion since we had been told to hold short. He shouted out in a rapid pace to turn right heading 100; 22L cleared for takeoff. We departed and; upon landing at our destination; I listened to the recording and became convinced that he did want us to cross the hold short line and pull up to the white line indicating the start of Runway 22L. Of course neither the Captain nor I were not going to do that under any circumstances without the proper terminology being used to enter an active runway. ATC should never ask pilots to cross the hold short line to expedite departures even if they aren't allowed to use the line up and wait procedure. Hopefully; pilots are not doing this even with the pressure put upon us to cross the line. Tower asked us three times to pull up to edge of runway past hold short line.




Synopsis: MDW Air Carrier departure voiced concern regarding ATC's instructions reference taxiing up to the hold short line and/or runway edge line.
Date: 201705
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There have been concerns of runners/vendors and other vehicles positioning/waiting for [aircraft to arrive]; and Self-Park at [adjacent gate] not picking up the threats (they had a fault issue on it yesterday). Granted; they shouldn't be waiting in the [safety zone]. However; I believe this does highlight a threat if a wing walker is not present and the flight crew park the aircraft using Self-Park as per their SOP. Multiple [safety reports] have been filed on this matter to no avail.


Second narrative: An aircraft arriving into gate XX on self-park last evening. The crew could not meet the aircraft. However [other ramp workers] were staged on the left side; inside the [operation zone] waiting for the arrival. The self-park did not give the flight deck information there was an obstruction in the [envelope].


Synopsis: Ramp employees reported concern about vehicles and personnel staging in the gate area; but not clear of the operations zone.
Date: 201502
Location: PKB.Airport, WV
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PKB
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On taxi out of PKB I noticed an issue that I thought worthy to bring to [your] attention. We were issued a taxi clearance to runway 3. Our clearance was to taxi to 3 via E; G; H; cross 10/28. As we were taxiing down G taxiway I noticed a single hold short line which was prior to the split of F and H and had two runway hold signs. One of these signs was for 10-28 and one was for 3-21. I looked at the approach path and there was a Cherokee on short final for runway 3. I stopped the airplane and queried ATC. I said that I wanted to confirm we were cleared to cross this hold short line; meanwhile the Cherokee was landing and rolling out; to which he replied; 'cleared to cross runway 10-28'. I looked ahead and did not see another hold short line for 3-21 and I said that it appears this hold short line is for both runways. At this point the Cherokee had passed the intersection and ATC said cleared to cross and taxi to 3. He made a comment about how he could understand my confusion. I think that the controller has to clear the aircraft to cross both runways in order to cross that hold short line and I think that should not happen with an aircraft rolling out or on short final for one of the two. I feel like the issue needs to be clarified. If I am wrong I also would be happy to understand how so. I did check Google Earth and it appears the same as I remember it. Thanks.




Synopsis: Light Transport Captain reported being confused by PKB ATC procedures and a single hold line in the vicinity of Runways 10/28 and 3/21 at Taxiway G.