elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In my opinion as well as most other flight attendants that I have spoken to recently-there has been a drastic increase in the amount of personal alcohol that is being consumed on our flights. I started to take notice in mid-January when I had to write up a PAX who became intoxicated brought on by his own sake and Japanese beers. He stated that he bought them in the airport specifically to enjoy on our flight. My next incident came out of ZZZ and a gentleman was eating his deli sandwich and had a Bud Light out on the tray table. I have been picking up mini bottles of liquor that we do not sell. Mini bottles are being sold next to the kiosk in ZZZ1. A PAX in front of me at a restaurant in ZZZ2 bought a 22 oz can of beer. None of these restaurants are opening the alcohol that is purchased - allowing and making customers believe that it is alright to consume on board. It is not. It is a FAR. This needs to be addressed. The easiest solution I see; is adding another sentence following our demo announcements after saying smoking is not allowed. Consumption of personal alcohol is not as well. Or reinstating placards on the jet bridges saying that it is a finable offense; maybe passengers will heed their consumption. Our terminals are all becoming overridden with bars that line all concourses. We need to be able to monitor some consumption. In my opinion it is getting more out of control than I have ever seen.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported and observed an increase in the number of incidents of intoxicated passengers who have brought alcohol onboard flights for their own consumption during the flight. They recommended adding a sentence to the required passenger demo to include a warning about the prohibition against the consumption of any alcohol not purchased onboard.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight attendants reported 2 possible inebriated passengers acting belligerent not wearing masks and disturbing surrounding passengers. Flight attendants requested personnel meet the aircraft upon arrival in ZZZ.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that two passengers who were possibly inebriated were acting belligerently and not complying with face mask policy.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-300
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tower CIC/Cab coordinator. A SR22 [was] on routine VFR arrival procedure to Runway 12L. A B737 holding in position Runway 12R awaiting traffic to exit for departure. The SR22 enters left base and is cleared to land Runway 12L; read back landing clearance Runway 12L. On base aircraft turns outbound opposite runway and then realizing his mistake turns back towards the airport. The SR22 was very high and it was very difficult to see exactly which runway he was lined up for. Local Controller issued traffic to the SR22 on the B737 holding in position on Runway 12R. The SR22 acknowledges and states traffic in sight. Roll-out traffic exits and the B737 is cleared for takeoff. The SR22; still very high dives down for landing but is apparently lined up for 12R. The B737 has just started take off role and states that he is aborting his takeoff. The SR22 touches down mid way down Runway 12R and exits. The B737 is told to hold by Local Control and holds in position. When the runway is clear the B737 is cleared for takeoff and departs normally. Use of extreme caution with this procedure as it is very difficult to verify the aircraft's position on final; especially if they are high. Also; pilot training to know he can't land over another aircraft on the same runway.


Second narrative: Holding short of [Runway] 12R; we were monitoring the Tower frequency and heard a Cirrus aircraft being cleared to land on 12L. After the Cirrus read back cleared to land on 12L; Tower then cleared us into position for 12R. Once in position we were then cleared for takeoff. The First Officer was flying and he pushed up the power and I noticed a shadow on my left side. I then thought the sun was on my right and something was not right. I then started looking for the reason for the shadow and looked up and there he was over us and he landed right in front of us on OUR runway. We immediately aborted the takeoff and told Tower we were aborting. Cleared for takeoff and small single engine aircraft over flew us and landed on our runway.


Synopsis: Tower Controller described an Air Carrier aborted take off event when VFR traffic assigned a parallel runway landed over top the Air Carrier in position.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The recent notice - NAFB 16-03 flight advisory GPS interference testing illustrates a continuous disregard for safety of our nation's airspace navigation system. The coverage area of this test effectively grounds all GPS-equipped aircraft in the Southwest flying IFR since they may experience unknown signal loss. As explicitly stated in this notice Phenom 300 aircraft are grounded; since they are singled out to not fly in that area during this time.Another example is all aircraft operating above FL240; which requires DME. Since GPS navigation systems provide DME; an aircraft flying above 240 would also be affected and grounded.At the time that ground based NAVAIDs are being decommissioned and our government is promoting GPS based systems as primary navigation sources; the repeated interruption of GPS signals by our military [is] threatening the safety of our aviation system.




Synopsis: A pilot reported concerns regarding the continuing disruption of GPS signals by the military testing jamming equipment.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UNV.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were asked to call the airport in sight roughly 20 miles out and then they cleared us for the visual approach. We asked for direct WOREX; the FAF on the ILS - as I was using that for a backup to the visual. After being cleared for the visual approach we descended down to 3100 ft; which is the crossing altitude for WOREX - due to the rising terrain the GPWS went off several times because of the peaks and valleys as we crossed over them. The weather was VFR; 10-15 miles visibility and no ceiling. Instead of climbing back up to a higher altitude we maintain 3100 feet clear of terrain; intercepted the LOC; established ourselves on the ILS and completed the visual using the ILS as a backup. I turned off the autopilot inside the FAF and hand flew the airplane to a normal landing. The rest of the flight was uneventful and normal. Both crew member immediately realized what was happening and why. Many times going into UNV; the Controllers are 'in a hurry' to clear us for the visual and hand us off; which was the case today. We both agreed to maintain current altitude as we were clear of all terrain; had extremely good visibility of our situation and surroundings and had the airport in sight; there was also no additional threats to the flights safety. On these outstation airports; simply ask for vectors to final and don't let the Controllers push you into a visual approach.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a visual approach to UNV airport.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I relieved the previous Controller and started working traffic. I was told that it was hard to communicate with Aircraft X because of his low altitude and the BUEC [Back up radio] was OTS. When I sat down Aircraft X was non-radar.  I saw the code for Aircraft X and tagged the data block up with the aircraft. A fter identification the MSAW flashed and I realized that the aircraft was in a 6;500 feet MIA box level at 6;000 feet MSL.  I immediately climbed the aircraft to 7;000 feet MSL for the remainder of his flight.Recommendation: We have been trained to check the MIA.  It was a mistake and no recommendations needed.




Synopsis: ZLC ARTCC Controller reported realizing an aircraft was at the wrong altitude for his sector an initiated an immediate climb.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Passenger
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I wanted to report a serious safety issue that occurred. Our flight was in the process of landing; and I was seated in the very rear of the plane; two rows in from the back. During the landing process; our plane hit turbulence and two large metal containers flew out of the rear of the plane and hit the gentlemen next to my chair. I asked him if he was injured; he held his head; and didn't response. I asked him again; and he said he'd be ok. Thank God this wasn't worse.Several times during the flight passengers got up while the seat belt sign was off. Several passengers were told to sit down; but after not speaking English; were allowed to continue waiting for the laboratories to open up. When this event occurred these large containers flew out at a fast speed; and I honestly think could have killed any passengers; had any been breaking the rules at that point. [I observed that] the latches holding these bins in were clearly not closed. I find this to be a safety issue; not only because there obviously wasn't proper training on ensuring the safety of the passengers by closing the latches; but I also feel there should be safety mechanisms that should alert flight attendants if these latches are not closed while the bins are in place.




Synopsis: A passenger reported that large metal containers from the galley were displaced in turbulence and made contact with a passenger's head.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach; Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class A MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I have two questions/concerns: 1) We could use some clarification regarding minimum altitudes to begin turns after departure from MIA. The problem seems to be centered upon the different altitudes in the Obstacle DP on the [Page] 10-9A and those on the SIDS. The differences are significant and need to be reconciled. 2) Can anyone shed light on the Note #5 in the header section of the 11-3 ILS or LOC RWY (Runway) 9 chart; 'Autopilot coupled approach not authorized'? As per the AIM and Company's FOM definitions; a coupled approach refers to any approach performed by the autopilot. This is obviously not the same definition as an auto landing. There are currently exist 2 NOTAMs concerning autopilot usage; one for ILS RWY 9 and one for the ILS RWY 26L. Neither refer to auto landings. If the FAA meant to restrict auto landings on Runway 9 it should be clearly stated in the header notes or in a NOTAM. The way it is currently written leads one to believe ILS or LOC approaches to Runway 9 must be hand flown.Poorly written Jeppesen notes.Clarify with succinct verbiage.




Synopsis: Captain reported being confused and asking for clarification with departure procedures out of Miami and additionally on arrival regarding the term;  'Autopilot coupled approach not authorized.'
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On final approach to ZZZ XXL ILS we received a TCAS RA. Normally we get that when an aircraft is on final to XXR. We could not find the other aircraft. We then received an RA to climb and did so. I looked straight below us out the right window and saw the intruder. He was directly below us appearing to also flying to XXL. We got to about 400 feet directly above him before we got the RA. We notified ATC and they responded that the aircraft was on the ILS to XXR. He obviously wasn't. We discontinued the approach and eventually landed on XYR. Fortunately we had not taken the advice on the 10-7 page and selected TA only. If we had; we would have had a midair.


Second narrative: Cleared ILS XXL approach; was not informed that there was an aircraft on XXR; did not hear the aircraft on the XXR approach or the airplane  was not on same frequency. Received a TCAS RA; 1st Officer looked out window and told me that there was an airplane below [us].  Followed TCAS RA; flew the missed approach. Didn't turn the TCAS to TA only because we were on an ILS approach and we were not informed of traffic on XXR.


Synopsis: A320 pilot crew reported receiving an RA on final approach and executing a missed approach. Crew reported RA was late; ATC did not issue traffic advisory and transponder was not in TA only mode as per company policy.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed and started to head east. Flew 50 miles when visibility started to deteriorate slightly. Flew over a ravine [and] made emergency landing in a field due to IMC conditions.




Synopsis: C177 pilot reported landing in a field after encountering IMC weather conditions in flight.
Date: 202112
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise from ZZZZ to ZZZZ1 on Aircraft X operating as Flight X the forward captain side window heating element started to spark; and smoke could be seen coming from the unit. The crew quickly shut power off to the unit; followed the appropriate checklist; and pulled the circuit breaker for the windshield heat. [We advised ATC]; and we headed directly to ZZZZ1 airport. The office was contacted via sat phone and informed about our situation and talked to Name about further actions that may be needed. While on approach; the Controller started to vector us around; and we told him that we were unable and were flying directly to the field for a visual approach. The Controller then tried to vector us behind other traffic; and we told them unable and told them of our intentions of flying a visual pattern to the airport and that we needed priority handling as we had requested it. The aircraft landed safely; and the fire department looked over the plane. An inspector met the crew; and contact info was given; and we were told to have [Operations] reach out to him.




Synopsis: Captain reported an electrical failure of the cockpit window heat caused a diversion and precautionary landing.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 40
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN; Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Descending with vectors from the LARKS8 arrival on an IFR flight plan from ZZZ to APA.  Encountered severe clear air turbulence at approximately 12;500 MSL in the descent over the front range of the Rockies.  Turbulence came on immediately with no prior turbulence. Could not maintain assigned altitude or heading.  I reduced speed to maneuvering speed; deployed the gear and maintained wings level. I reported to Denver Approach that I was below assigned altitude and encountering severe turbulence. I was cleared to a lower altitude and turbulence abated at about 8;500 MSL.  I made a pilot report to Denver approach.  Landing with gusts to 30 kts out of the west was uneventful on runway 28 at APA. This was the worst turbulence I have experience in the Cessna 425 and I have several hundred hours of time in type and have flown the LARKS8 STAR often.




Synopsis: Cessna 425 pilot reported he encountered severe clear air turbulence on descent to APA on the LARKS8 Arrival.