elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff on the ECAM indicated a main deck cargo fire. Jumpseaters (after debrief) said there was a thick air conditioning (AC) pack smell. We stayed with tower [and] did a left traffic pattern for an overweight; visual approach. Fire trucks met us on the runway and told us they saw no hot spots. Taxied back to the gate.Pack Smoke/Mist


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


Synopsis: After takeoff in an Airbus A300; the crew got an ECAM Warning of a 'Main Deck Cargo Fire'. There was a thick Air Conditioning Pack smell.
Date: 201909
Location: VIDP.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower VIDP
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: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landing Runway 11 at Delhi. As aircraft was in the flare in the touchdown zone what I would describe a series of professional grade fireworks; multicolored/flowery; were lit off approximately near Taxiway S3 and between Taxiway Z and Runway 11; where I show a red/yellow symbol on the airport chart.This took the crew by surprise and was very distracting at a critical time. The crew had no previous knowledge that this activity would happen. I briefly considered a go-around but felt the safest course of action was to land as I could not see any objects or obstacles on the runway ahead. The Tower was queried with no explanation. Later the Ground Controller stated something about either 'bugs;' or 'birds.'I have never heard of professional grade pyrotechnics (display fireworks) being used to scare animals. Even if this is a common procedure the crew should be warned and the fireworks should not be set off so close to a runway that aircraft are landing on.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that an airport was using fireworks to deter birds; causing a distraction on final approach.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During takeoff roll; approaching 120 KIAS (V1=134KIAS; VR=150KIAS) the red ENG FAIL glare shield light illuminated. Captain assumed control of the aircraft and executed a rejected takeoff. No engine parameters were exceeded and brake temperatures remained below a yellow box value. Aircraft briefly stopped on the runway while QRH procedures were complied with. Taxied to the gate and debriefed maintenance. During debrief; both the First Officer and off duty pilot jump seater stated; they hear some sort of engine rollback. Aircraft was trans-loaded and flight continued to destination.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported experiencing an ENG FAIL light during takeoff roll resulting in a high-speed rejected takeoff.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: During preflight; flight attendants brought to our attention that there were no sani-wipes on board.  We called Operations for some to be delivered and they said they had zero inventory to give us.While the planes are cleaned; wipes need to be available so crews can ensure their workstation is wiped down after crew/plane swaps.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported no sani-wipes were on the aircraft; nor available from operations.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At about 14;000 [feet] and 12 east; Baggage Smoke Indicator and Master Warning illuminated. Checklist commanded land as soon as possible. We discussed briefly and agreed to continue to ZZZ. Pilot Flying flew at max aircraft speed until needing to configure. Pilot Monitoring [advised] with ATC and informed passengers. No smoke or abnormal smell observed exterior or interior. Pilot Flying exited the runway and aircraft was approached by airport fire truck. Pilot Monitoring exited to coordinate baggage compartment inspection with fire crew. No fire; smoke; or abnormal smells observed.




Synopsis: CE-525 Non-flying First Officer reported a baggage compartment fire warning.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Paine Sector but I was watching Departure as well during periods of non-activity. I noticed an air show aircraft coming very close to the edge of the air show TFR. Then a departure came off Seattle northbound. I observed a fighter jet aerial demo aircraft come within about 3/4 of a mile and 600 FT or less of the departing Air Carrier. He was also traveling at a speed (approximately 450 KTS) where the Air Carrier could not have made any maneuvers to avoid him. It appears to me that these pilots have not been properly briefed on the risks and traps of flying within the Seattle airspace. Avoiding SEATAC should have been the top priority during the planning and morning briefs with these air show pilots. This was a very dangerous situation. The pilots should have been better prepared and briefed by the lead ATC representative on how to depart and return to their airport safely. At a minimum they should at all times know where they are reference the Seattle flow of traffic. Controllers; Air-boss; pilots and ATC representatives need to be on the same page on how to work these guys. It's seriously poor planning that this situation occurred. Pilot should fly at a safe speed. Lastly; a FLM said that he told all aircraft to turn off their transponders while in the TFR; this seems wrong. There is no separation built in with a TFR. They can run right up to the border and non participating aircraft can run up to the outside border; so where is the separation? It seems to me like a transponder might be the only thing that separates two aircraft. The Air Carrier had no idea that the the fighter jet was there because his transponder was off. Had it been on; the Air Carrier at least may have been able to see him coming and take evasive action if he felt that was necessary. This wasn't a big deal this time because they missed but it could have been much worse. And worst of all; it could have been prevented.




Synopsis: S46 Controller described an unsafe event when a military fighter participating in an air show transitioned very close to the TFR boundary in close proximity to departure traffic. The reporter voiced concern regarding the FAA's 'no transponder policy' issued to air show participants.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing from Southport; passing B3; a large fuel truck cut us off (west to east); forcing a hard immediate stop.  Our taxi light was on.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported making a quick stop to avoid a collision with a fuel truck while taxiing at ORD.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MWC.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MWC
ATC / advisory: Tower MWC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Student and I were working left traffic for 22R at MWC. There was a large volume of traffic coming into the area due to the [event] taking place. After [touch and go] we entered left traffic; leveled off and were established on left downwind. Tower called an experimental that he was to follow a Cessna on left downwind; same altitude less than 3/4 mi and that he was gaining on us. The experimental pilot said he would try to slow down. I made visual contact with the aircraft and mentioned on frequency that we were at his 1 o'clock. He was unable to establish visual contact with us. He said he would extend downwind; at which time we began our descent; shortly beyond abeam 'the numbers'. I expected the traffic following us to continue his downwind at pattern altitude. We slowed to 80 kts; descended with flaps 10 deg and turned base. I do not remember any further traffic advisory calls. After turning left base; at approximately 1300 ft MSL; I look to our left and slightly behind and see the [aircraft] pass very closely overhead and just behind our flight path; on a downwind heading. My student and I made a normal full stop landing and taxied to the ramp to shut down. I asked on frequency if the Tower Manager was still in; the Controller reported that he was not. The Tower Controller called the FBO after I walked in to discuss the event with me. He wanted to better understand what happened. I don't mean to speak negatively of the Controller; but his performance in general is inadequate. This is not the first issue I've had; or have heard of; just that this near mid-air collision should have never come close to happening. I am planning to make a report to the tower manager of the event. I much appreciate the controllers; but I will be thinking twice about the amount of traffic at the airport if this Controller is working. I feel the Controller should have kept a closer eye on the situation as it progressed; and alerted the aircraft following us to maintain his altitude. I spoke with the other pilot after landing; he also felt the Tower Controller was overwhelmed at the time.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported NMAC in pattern due to inadequate ATC service.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ strong dirty sock smell. Coordinated with company and returned to ZZZ.


Second narrative: On climbout; experienced a fumes event. Leveled off FL270. Contacted Maintenance Control; and Dispatch. Decided to return to ZZZ.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported a strong dirty socks odor during departure resulting in a return to departure airport.
Date: 202009
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received communication from Operations that flight ZZZ to ZZZ1 was coming back to [the] gate because a customer had O2 oxygen tanks not approved for flying.  Went onboard to investigate customer who was traveling with her infant.  The oxygen bottles were for the infant.  I asked if the baby could fly without oxygen.  Customer assured me that yes; the baby could fly; the oxygen was for tonight at bed time when she arrived in ZZZ1.  I advised customer of our policy and that these canisters could not fly.  Customer advised me that both she and the baby and the oxygen all flew in from ZZZ2.  I relayed our policy and advised her that I would take the oxygen down to baggage claim area. Passenger had two full canisters in a black roller board bag; and the 3rd O2 container was in a small pouch with a shoulder strap that easily looked like a shoulder strap purse.  The CSR boarding the aircraft was senior and did not notice any discrepancies that may have alerted her to the fact that there was oxygen canisters being transported.  Once the plane pushed off the jet bridge the flight attendant onboard witnessed the customer with the O2 bottle and inquired about it. Baggage Service is advised and has customer's phone contact; but bottles cannot be flown; customer will need to make arrangements in ZZZ1 for the babies oxygen tonight.  Will also follow up with a report on how the oxygen canisters made it through TSA in ZZZ2 undetected.




Synopsis: Ground Agent reported notification of aircraft ground gate return to remove unauthorized oxygen canister.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At the top of the descent the ECAM Fuel Display for the right inner tank went to 'XX.X'. Fuel in this tank was approximately zero at this point. This lack of signal caused the fuel totalizer; CG; Gross Weight of the airplane to also go to XX.X. Per the QRH; there are two CB's (P60/P61) that we are advised to reset to restore the fuel quantity indication. That action only corrected the problem intermittently. We landed in ZZZ and Maintenance troubleshot and signed off on the fuel system as airworthy. The same problem recurred on the flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Again; we followed the QRH CB procedure; but still; it did not fix the problem. We landed and wrote up the AML. I received a maintenance report on [date] in ZZZ1 stating that they found burn residue at the terminal end of the probes inside that fuel tank. I would like to ensure that the right folks are aware of this incident to determine if we have a systemic issue here with the hardware (arcing in an empty fuel tank) or the QRH procedure when we are resetting power to the cadensicon probes. The gravity of the threat of a fuel tank explosion should be apparent to us all. Recommend that this issue be investigated to ensure that we do not have a systemic risk of fuel tank explosions with our hardware or the QRH procedure that requires you to reset the CB to this system.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported receiving a maintenance report stating burn residue found at the terminal end of the probes inside the fuel tank. This was after the Captain had performed the QRH procedure for a fuel gauge inoperative/reset.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Lighting Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passing roughly 2;000 feet; autopilot off; FO (First Officer) hand flying; get direct CSHEL. I'm heads down in the box; when my peripheral sees an ECAM and System page on lower ECAM pop up. By the time I execute the direct and look over; [the] screens go back to normal [and there is] nothing on [the] Status page. FO has no clue; but I know some thing's up.Passing roughly 4;000 feet; No Smoking and LDG light green indications on upper ECAM screen cycle on and off a few times; then return to normal. Passing roughly 12;000 feet; 'Ding;' ECAM: C/B tripped rear panel W-Z. No breakers are tripped; but ECAM stays displayed for about 3 minutes. Then goes out. Passing roughly 18;000 feet; 'Ding;' ECAM: HYD B RSVR LO AIR PR. On status page; HYD B quantity good; system output press good - 3;000 - but air pressure indicating low.[I] messaged Technical Support Maintenance Control; [and] they ask about quantity and fluid pressure. I reply; 'Both normal.' ECAM lasts roughly 3 minutes and then clears itself. Passing roughly 22;000; LDG LT indication on upper ECAM screen cycles on and off. Finally extinguishes after two minutes.I messaged Technical Support Maintenance Control again [and] ask what's going on. They ignore me [and] never reply. In order to document [them]; I wrote up all 4; tripped C/B; HYD low air pressure; smoking light; landing light. While this is all going on; I'm thinking the jet might be on fire. Always my first thought when random; inexplicable things start happening. Two thorough cycles through the system pages reveal all normal; which puts me at ease. Once established at cruise; all indications [were] normal and we continued [the] flight with no further incident.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported multiple ECAM messages; advisory lights; and ECAM displays switching; then dissipating during flight with no observable systems failing.