elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Learjet 25
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes after level out at FL410; the left engine flamed out while at a long range fuel setting and at mach .67 or .68 for maximum range. I requested FL250 from ATC and was cleared to FL250 and ATC asked if I had an emergency. I informed ATC that I had experienced an engine flameout and was going to descend for a restart. ATC asked again if I was declaring an emergency and I replied 'No; I am descending for a restart'. On reaching FL250; I completed a windmilling restart according to the checklist at which time the engine restarted normally and came up to power. Since the flameout was most likely the result of high altitude and low power settings and the engine was performing normally; I requested and climbed to FL330 and monitored all engine settings which remained normal. After landing; I had a Mechanic look at the engine and complete a normal start and power run and will have a logbook entry that the engine is airworthy.




Synopsis: LJ25 Captain experiences an engine flame out at FL410 which is attributed to the high altitude and low power setting. A descent to FL250 is requested and the engine is successfully started. Flight continues at FL330 and upon landing Maintenance can find no faults.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Right red gear unsafe light illuminated; as well as all three amber gear door lights and gear in transit lights upon raising the landing gear after takeoff. We also noticed a loud grinding noise coming from underneath the flight deck. This resulted in our flight returning to [departure airport]. Mechanically to be determined. Aircraft was subsequently ferried to a maintenance base to determine the cause of the indications. After the gear indications were noticed; ATC was notified (emergency was not declared); as well as the flight attendant; who was asked to visually inspect the landing gear. We ran the appropriate checklist; which led to alternate gear extension; and notified ops of our situation and asked them to notify dispatch. The passengers were also notified that we would be returning to [departure airport]. At this point; the Captain noted that we had drifted from our assigned altitude of 4;000 ft down to 3;300 feet. This was immediately corrected and ATC was notified. The Captain remarked that he thought the autopilot was engaged; when it in fact was not. After we landed; ATC was called via telephone to discuss the situation that had occurred. The controller replied that all traffic was cleared from our area to accompany us while we ran our checklists; and that the altitude deviation was not an issue. He also mentioned that we were well above his MVA. From this event; I was reminded of the importance of always monitoring aircraft automation while running checklists and emergency checklists. What the pilot perceives the automation to be doing and what the automation is actually doing can be different; if careful attention is not paid. As a crew; we debriefed the event and discussed what was done well; and what could have been improved upon.




Synopsis: Dash-8 First Officer reported returning to the departure airport after experiencing abnormal landing gear indications after gear retraction.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL260; we were assigned an arrival change. As I was setting up my charts on iPad (looking right); I became aware; due to 'bank angle' 'bank angle' and sound of Autopilot being turned off. At that time I noticed we were in excess of 60 degrees of bank; nose low (but not extreme). The Captain had taken the controls; and was hand flying recovery. It all happened fast; but I do not think I had any sensory cues that we were in bank; until the aforementioned aircraft sounds. I was a little confused on what exactly happened and was happening; but Captain executed excellent recovery. I notified ATC that we had lost 500 feet due to flight control issue; and they told us to descend to FL240; which we did. I asked Captain what had happened; and he told me he was also looking at iPad; and when he looked up; we were well past 45 degrees of bank; still on autopilot. He told me he disconnected autopilot; and executed recovery. We ascertained if there were any injuries in back of plane; and were told none.Rest of flight was uneventful; except for one of us always keeping a hand on yolk; in case anomaly reoccurred. We discussed episode; could not figure out what had occurred. Best we came up with was autopilot directed bank and did not stop; until disengaged. I had quick connection to dead head after flight; discussed with Captain who said he would write up and fill out reports. Really have no idea on why it occurred. We were both seated; no chance of accidentally bumping yoke. Cannot explain.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer experienced excessive bank angle at FL260 with the Captain flying and autopilot engaged. The Captain disconnected the autopilot and regained the 500 feet of altitude lost. Both pilots were focused on their iPads and did not see what initiated the event.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Descent
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff from ZZZ; the FA's (Flight Attendant) reported a chemical/exhaust smell and a brief period of a haze in the cabin. Both of the items soon disappeared; but we were able to briefly smell a exhaust type smell briefly in the cockpit as well. As we started the descent into ZZZ1 and the power levers retarded to idle thrust; the odor returned and was reported by the rear FA's but without a haze report this time. The odor was faintly noticeable in the cockpit and would dissipate quickly once the power levels were returned to a greater than idle power setting. After landing and upon gate arrival; I consulted with the FA's and decided the aircraft was to be written up for a smoke/odor/fume event. The FA's met with their respective Flight Service managers and were evaluated by EMT's at the airport. The EMT's instructed the FA's to seek further medical attention. At that point; the FA's left the airport for the hospital to be further evaluated. The FO (First Officer) and I decided that we did not need medical attention. Our aircraft was taken out of service and eventually cancelled due to lack of cabin crew.The aircraft had been sitting in ZZZ for 24 hours with constant rain. My guess is certain areas that get hot following application of bleed air may have steamed off latent oil and/or other fluids that may have been ingested into the packs.[I suggest] more aircraft maintenance that revolves around preventative care of the aircraft.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported being notified by the flight attendants of a 'chemical/exhaust' odor after departure. The fumes dissipated after a brief period only to resume during descent. Flight Attendants received medical evaluation after the flight.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After shutdown checklist completed; the #1 FA (Flight Attendant) advised me that both the #3 and #4 FAs were not feeling well due to odor or fumes they experienced during approach. The #1 explained he felt fine and smelled nothing. The first officer and I smelled nothing and also felt fine. To my knowledge; no passengers complained of feeling ill. After all passengers deplaned; I spoke with FA X and FA Y. They both said they had headaches; had some throat discomfort and felt lethargic. They described they saw nothing visible during landing but smelled an odor and or fume of a Category D type. It was obvious to me they did not feel normal and appeared pale. I suggested they get off the aircraft and had a cart brought out for them to sit in outside the aircraft and requested paramedics. The station operations people called the paramedics; the FO (First Officer) notified dispatch and also requested maintenance. I made an AML (Aircraft Maintenance Log) entry and spoke to the mechanic. By this time the medics arrived and checked out both FAs. The medics strongly suggested both FAs go to the hospital. They both agreed and were transported by ambulance to the ER. They were both in the ER for approximately 5 hours. I wish I had an explanation; but I have none. The aircraft was checked out by maintenance and no cause could be determined.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported being notified upon shutdown that some of the flight attendants on board did not feel well due to unknown fumes or odor during the approach.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working LC-3; I started crossing after an aircraft departed. I crossed one at S; N5; and T. I then crossed 2 at P. I scanned the runway and observed aircraft clear at all intersections but failed to notice the 2nd aircraft at P had not yet entered the runway. Aircraft Y was about 1000 feet down RWY 27R when Aircraft X called me and said he had not yet crossed the RWY when I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. I evaluated his position; which did not appear to be past the hold lines and Aircraft Y was already passing through 60 kts according to the ASDE. I told Aircraft X to hold position and allowed Aircraft Y to continue departure roll. Once airborne I crossed Aircraft X first and then proceeded to cross all remaining aircraft at the other intersections. I can't recall how I messed this up. I don't know if Aircraft X was slow to taxi or how I didn't account for the second aircraft at P.Always use procedures and patterns. I should have only crossed one at P to be consistent with the other intersections. I should be more aware of aircraft that taxi very slowly to make sure they don't get lost in the pack.




Synopsis: ATL Tower Controller reported of crossing two aircraft and then doing other duties. Controller then cleared an aircraft for takeoff; second crossing traffic advised Controller they have not crossed yet. Controller had crossing aircraft hold short of runway allowing departing aircraft to get airborne. Controller thought the second crossing aircraft was slow in its taxi and that is why they forgot about it.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYUL.Airport, PQ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYUL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: My partner and I were seeking clarification on how Canadian controllers wanted us to meet crossing restrictions on the arrival. We had asked for clarification of whether or not they would be issuing a 'Descend Via' clearance or not. We were told that they do issue descend via clearances but; even in the absence of that clearance on this arrival; they wanted us to meet the crossing restrictions as published on the arrival. We had been assigned 8000 FT and were at 8000 FT. I clarified with the controller that he did indeed want us to make the next crossing restriction fix between the charted lower altitudes and he advised affirmative. So we began to descend to meet that restriction. Somewhere around 7800 FT we were issued a clearance to an altitude higher than the restrictions of the next fix; resetting our descent clearance. This confused us as we were just told to make the next crossing restriction. When I asked for clarification again; the controller then explained that we only need to meet the restrictions once we have been assigned an altitude at or below the fix altitude restrictions. We had not actually been cleared to descend to cross the fix yet; which meant that in attempting to descend to meet the crossing restriction as we thought we had been instructed; we were actually in deviation from our actual assigned altitude. Confusion on Canadian descent rules for arrivals. This is an issue for pilots such as myself that do not go to Canada often enough. Now that I have experienced the scenario first hand I should be able to avoid future events such as this in Canada. However; we had received a message regarding these procedures some time ago. Unfortunately; with the number of messages and manual updates that we receive it is impossible to remember every scenario. It would be helpful to have all current Canada related notes/memo's in one place to look up before traveling there; for example. The same can be said with Mexico. At the least; for my part; I plan to ensure that I better prepare for these possible events by reviewing any info I can locate on a given location prior to flight there.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of confusion with Canadian Controllers and their use of Descend Via.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: These are 'WAVEY Shuffle' departures originating from KHPN..CMK..BETHA..HTO..BEADS..SWL.J174./. When these flight plans populate the URET as proposals; this is the routing depicted. When the hand off is accepted by ZBW Sector 32; the routing changes to KHPN..BEADS..SWL.J174. Sector 32 Controllers have been briefed on a mutual understanding that these aircraft will be DIRECT BEADS on initial contact after hand off from N90. These two particular aircraft were never given direct BEADS by the previous controller and were preceding DIRECT HTO when queried. The difference between HTO and BEADS can be as much as a 40 degrees depending on the angle the aircraft enters our airspace. If aircraft are left DIRECT HTO (ESE bound); they are climbing head on with descending JFK arrivals on the PARCH1. We expect them SE bound DIRECT BEADS. Recommendation; 1) Fix the automation. N90 Controllers do not see the update that Sector 32 gets via DIRECT BEADS in the computer. I queried the delivering Controller and he said his routing showed HTO..BEADS. I told him we are expecting them DIRECT BEADS. This is a made up route forced upon ZBW with no LOA or briefing. N90 controllers are unsure; we are unsure. 2) Put into writing; the procedure (DIRECT BEADS); and make sure each individual controller at both N90 and ZBW sign off on the procedure.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller described a confused routing event initiated by N90 noting the procedure in question should be formalized and contained in an LOA.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Unable to control cabin altitude; [expedited] descentIn cruise FL430; 'CABIN PRESS LOW' Red CASS message illuminated; cabin began to climb 400-600 FPM; Ask for and received lower altitude. Performed checklist; when unable to control cabin rate of climb; [advised ATC] and began [expedited descent]. Regained limited control of the cabin at FL180; continued descent to 12;000 ft. and diverted to suitable airport ZZZ. Approach and landing uneventful.




Synopsis: Gulfstream IV Captain reported a pressurization problem that resulted in an expedited descent and precautionary landing.