elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While at FL340 in level flight; during smooth; night; VMC conditions; we encountered wake from a crossing jet at FL350. We received one solid jolt and returned to smooth flight. We immediately turned on the seatbelt sign. The First Officer called back to the cabin to check on crew. Nobody answered on the first call; and on the second call about 30 seconds later the Purser answered. She stated she may have fell or bumped into something; she wasn't sure just what happened; and her left shoulder hurt. I asked if I should call Medlink or not and she said she wanted to wait a while and see how she felt. There were no other reports of turbulence in the immediate area. About a minute after the event; we got an automated report on the printer advising us we were near a light turbulence event of .15. I believe that our own jet was the originator of that report.  I checked in on the Purser about 30 minutes later and asked her about how she felt. She stated she felt ok and would be able to make the return flight; but she was sore. I told her I was advising Dispatch and going to fill out a [report]. Dispatch asked if she wanted to be checked out by EMS before [the return flight] and she said yes. EMS met us at the gate where they evaluated her. They said the only thing they could do for her was give her some muscle relaxers; but she would have to go with them for that treatment.  [The Purser] was worried about canceling the outbound flight and refused that treatment until I told her that Scheduling was deadheading in a replacement just in case. She then agreed to go with EMS for treatment.


Second narrative: We were just given a new route clearance to avoid weather near the front range; in the turn ATC notified us of heavy traffic 1;000 feet above and passing at our 12 o'clock position. I observed the traffic passing slightly from our left to right and opposite direction. Approximately 30 sec to 1 minute after passing the traffic we encountered a single jolt; of moderate intensity. We did not encounter any rolling tendency and we believe that it was the result of the oncoming traffic's wake turbulence.


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence in cruise flight at FL340 from opposite direction heavy jet that resulted in minor injury to a Flight Attendant.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G200 (IAI 1126 Galaxy)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: As we leveled off at 11;000 FT [ATC asked us to verify] that we were leveling at 11;000. This made us check why he would ask and we realized that I had misread the descent profile. The Center Controller had cleared us to 'descend via' the Chins Arrival landing south and I saw the note at RADDY Intersection showing that aircraft landing at Boeing Field cross at 250 KTS and 11;000 FT.What I had missed was that it showed that this was for Runway 31. All I concentrated on was the ''Landing Boeing Field' note. Since we were landing south; we should have crossed RADDY at 16;000; but this restriction is in the same note as another Landing North note and in a separate box from the Boeing Field box. I would like to see an addition to the Boeing Field box that clarifies that Boeing Field aircraft also need to cross RADDY at 16;000 FT. I should have also briefed the descent better with the Co-pilot; but I thought it was simply the RADDY at 11;000 FT crossing.There was not a conflict with any other traffic.




Synopsis: Confused by the graphic and textual format of the CHINS STAR to SEA (although planning to land at BFI; an 'airport also served' by the arrival) the Captain of a G200 crossed RADDY at 11;000 as charted for arrivals landing BFI on Runway 31. Unfortunately; Runway 13 was his runway of intended landing which requires crossing RADDY at 16;000 FT and at an IAS 20 KTS faster than designated for a Runway 31 landing.
Date: 202011
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: With the COVID-19 pandemic; technicians are concerned about proper safety with the removal and disposal of HEPA filters. The procedures are consistent with all of company fleet types; including both Manufacturer X and Manufacturer Y aircraft types. All of the AMM procedures include a list of the necessary PPE as well as Disposal requirements.DescriptionSTD-XXXX Coveralls - Hooded STD-XXXY Goggles - Safety; Non Vented STD-XXXZ Respirator - Particulate; meets NIOSH 42 CFR 84 Class N95; N99; N100 The question here is; what qualifications (if any) are needed and where can we find the company policy. The main item is the use of the respirator Class N95 as is called out for in the AMM procedures [for several aircraft types].The second question concerns proper disposal of used HEPA filters and used PPE. Obey the airline policy; local health department and law enforcement regulations when you discard this material. Obey these instructions to prevent injuries to personnel.




Synopsis: Technician reported requesting to know the company policy that governs the safe removal and disposal of HEPA filters and used PPE.  Technician is also unsure of what qualifications are needed to perform those tasks.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] holding short on Runway XX. [Aircraft Y was] cleared to land on short final on [Runway] XY. Other aircraft; [Aircraft Z]; [was] further out on final and ATC cleared to land on [Runway] XY. Tower cleared us to line up and wait [Runway] XX. Both Captain and First Officer questioned each other as to the position of the incoming [Aircraft Z] still far out on final. [We] taxied forward to comply with Tower instructions [of] line up and wait. As we advanced forward; it became more apparent that [Aircraft Z] was lined up on the wrong runway; [Runway] XX. Our aircraft nose had crossed over the hold short line and stopped. First Officer notified Tower of our position and the incoming [Aircraft Z]. Tower directed [Aircraft Z] to go-around [because they were] lined up on wrong runway. Outcome [was] uneventful.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported cleared on to runway by ATC; while traffic on final was mistakenly aligned to same runway.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
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; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach we had the flaps fail at 0. We stopped the approach to complied with the QRH; declared an emergency and landed with no further incident. Aircraft maintenance history of flap fail incidence.




Synopsis: A CRJ200 CAS alerted FLAPS FAIL at 0 while on approach; so a go-around was executed and the QRH complied with before landing. The aircraft had a maintenance history of flap faults.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FFZ.Tower, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Ground Controller approved opposite direction operation for a GPS Approach when we were landing and departing RWY 22 L/R. I circled Aircraft X 7 miles off of the departure end of Runway 22L; as soon as the pilot reported having the runway in sight; for left traffic Runway 22L. There was no incident with the procedure other than the cumbersome ODO (Opposite Direction Operation) rules designed for large IFR airports with large fast moving aircraft; not busy VFR airports with slow moving traffic. I am sure the rules were fractured as I explained to the Ground Controller to never accept or approve any ODO operation as it simply cannot be done with the rules as they exist. Traffic at the time were six or more aircraft in the touch and go pattern on the north runway; and I had three Touch and Go aircraft on my runway with other departures and arrivals.TRACON should never ever call and request an ODO with the current rules in place. Period. They should find some other alternative plan of action; especially when they can see the high traffic volume at FFZ at the time of their request. We would have to basically shut the airport down or execute a runway change in order to be in compliance. A runway change with 9 or more planes in the pattern would introduce a lot of unnecessary risk into the system to accommodate one IFR training flight. Also more training is apparently necessary so everyone at FFZ understands that ODO equals UNABLE. Simple; I get it; why can't everyone else.




Synopsis: FFZ Tower Controller had to delay an aircraft to accommodate an opposite direction operation. The Controller does not feel opposite direction operations should ever be approved if there is traffic in the pattern.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After takeoff; for weather ATC turned us to 160 heading; passing approximately 5;000 FT we hit a bird. It struck the First Officer's window with great force and made a noise loud enough to be heard in the coach cabin. The wiper appeared damaged with a large amount of bird carcass on the window; blood and guts. Because of the force of the strike and location and vector of the bird I elected to return to [departure airport] for inspection. We declared an emergency; asked for a return; briefed the flight attendants and passengers and were vectored for an approach. I elected to land overweight. We landed at approximately 133;000 LBS; smooth touchdown and long roll to slow down. [We] stopped after clearing the runway for inspection by Fire Department and temperature check with a Forward Looking Infrared Radiometer (FLIR) of the gear. All okay and then proceeded to the gate. Recorded all the above in the logbook. We did not see the bird until just a split second prior to impact; no time for an evasive maneuver.




Synopsis: MD-82 Captain reported loud; strong bird strike shortly after takeoff. Wiper appeared damaged; so an emergency was declared and the flight returned to departure airport for an overweight landing.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MWH.Tower, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D MWH
ATC / advisory: Tower MWH
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working locals combined with Ground Control; I issued a takeoff clearance to Aircraft X. The pilot informed me that while departing a vehicle had crossed the runway near midfield in front of him and that the pilot was still taking off and would pass behind him. The vehicle that crossed is part of the construction team working on repaving runways. The procedures for crossing the active runway is a single point of contact on the ground who is also part of the construction team. The vehicle that crossed the runway did not have permission to do so; now a radio to contact me for crossing. Someone with radio communication who is familiar with air traffic radio calls and phraseology to be put in charge of the crossings; which has already been put into place.


Second narrative: I had just taken position maybe 2 minutes prior to the incident occurring. My back was turned away from the runways as I was seated at my position. I was on the shout line doing some coordination when I heard some yelling from the other controllers in the tower cab reference a vehicle crossing a runway in front of an aircraft. My understanding is that the Local Controller was not in contact with this vehicle in any way; nor gave permission to any vehicle during this time to cross the runway. It is my belief that a breakdown in runway crossing procedures from the construction side of things is what led to this happening. My recommendation is no more single point of contact for runway crossings. At minimum one person or point of contact on either side of the runway both with radio capabilities to control the line from the closed non-movement area to the runway movement area.


Synopsis: MHW Tower controllers reported a departing aircraft notified them they took off over a vehicle which was on the runway.
Date: 201904
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger vomited on aft galley floor; [portable spill kit] was used. Flight Attendant B cleaned up vomit as Flight Attendant A maintained the main cabin and first class.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Flight Attendant reported using biohazard cleanup kit to clean up vomit in aft galley.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 99
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The Ivanpah Solar Power Plant glare caused cockpit illumination. The glare makes scanning for traffic impossible over approximately 40 degrees of the horizon which is directly ahead of the aircraft; approaching WHIGG Intersection; on V21. To avoid eye discomfort the pilot had to lower his view point in the aircraft to place the power plant mirrors below the glareshield.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports the glare from a Solar Power Plant requires the pilot seat to be lowered so the glareshield blocks the mirrors; but also eliminates the view forward.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X apparently operated with dangerous goods onboard without being provided with a NOTOC [Notice to Captain] and apparently with cargo not loaded according to the load plan. Loadmaster in ZZZ provided a W/B balance form that stated 'NOTOC: YES' but did not provide a NOTOC. When I asked the Loadmaster about the NOTOC; he said 'the two containers of Hazmat did not get loaded onto our aircraft because it accidentally was loaded on the other flight instead;' and asked us if we would make a last minute change to the W/B to reflect no NOTOC. I asked several times to confirm that no dangerous goods were loaded on the aircraft and was verbally assured of this. Load verification was performed with no discrepancies. The flight continued to ZZZ1 without incident. Upon receiving the W/B in ZZZ1 for the continuing flight to ZZZ2; I was provided a NOTOC. I asked the Loadmaster if cargo was uploaded. He said no; cargo was only offloaded. So I asked why we were provided a NOTOC and he said 'because you have dangerous goods onboard.' I explained what we were told in ZZZ and he confirmed that there were two containers of dangerous goods in the belly and furthermore there were several containers not loaded according to the load plan (wrong location).




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported transporting Hazmat shipment with incorrect/missing documentation and verbal verification of no Hazmat on board.