elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: En route MIA approximately 40 SM south of DFW at FL370 experienced 25 degree roll to right. Aircraft was engaged in LNAV and was observed switching to APP mode without pilot input (FMC changed lateral modes on its own). Both Captain and First Officer VHF radios tuned to 111.75 departing. DFW ILS 17L/35R has same frequency of 111.75. Minimal heading deviation occurred before corrective action taken.




Synopsis: A B737-NG overflying DFW 40 SM south at FL370 had 111.75 selected on the VHF radio heads and the APP MODE engaged causing a twenty five degree roll right. DFW ILS 17L/35R frequency is 111.75.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The First Officer was the Pilot Flying with the 'B' autopilot engaged. We had been in cruise flight for approximately one hour at FL370; at night and IMC with intermittent to continuous light turbulence; OAT approximately -54 when the Captain's airspeed indication began to decrease followed by multiple failure warnings including: Captain's 'A/S DISAGREE;' Captain's 'ALT DISAGREE;' Thrust levers increased; Master Caution: and the six pack annunciated 'ENG.' Both EEC's annunciated 'ALTN' and VNAV disengaged. The thrust levers moved to firewall and the upper center DU annunciated 'A/T LIMIT.' We completed immediate action items and determined we had unreliable Captain's airspeed and altimeter indications. We then completed the appropriate QRH checklists. We were now unable RVSM; so advised ATC; and were cleared to descend to FL270. As we descended through FL290; all the Captain's instruments returned to normal and remained normal for the duration of the flight. All probe heat indicators remained normal. A Maintenance review the next day indicated they had replaced the Captain's pitot probe; TAT; and the left ADIRU.




Synopsis: A B737-800 flight crew was confronted with numerous Captain's pitot/static system anomalies and warnings at FL370. During the subsequent descent to exit RVSM all systems returned to normal. Maintenance replaced the Captain's pitot probe; TAT and the left ADIRU.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Sector X. A B737-800 was on a Charted Visual Approach to Runway 30L at the airport. Adjacent traffic on a Visual Approach to Runway 30R was an A321. The A321was being worked by Sector Y which is located next to Sector X. Sector Y told the A321 to maintain visual separation from the B737. The A321 acknowledged the instruction to the Sector Y Controller. I advised the B737 to maintain visual separation from the A321. The B737 acknowledged the instruction. The B737 did not use their call sign acknowledging the clearance. According to your report from a random tape monitor you were able to ascertain that it was indeed the B737 who acknowledged the clearance. The report states 'The B737 was instructed to maintain visual separation with the A321; but failed to use a call sign when accepting the clearance.' Based on my many years experience working this sector the current light traffic situation at the time; and other factors; I also was able to ascertain that it was indeed the B737 which acknowledged the instruction. Since we were both able to ascertain that the B737 acknowledged the clearance even though they did not use their call sign why is this a problem? Since the A321 was already maintaining visual separation from the B737 why is this a problem? It is true that the B737 wound up slightly in trail of the A321. The A321 acknowledged instructions to maintain visual separation. According to the AIM it is the Pilot's responsibility to stay in a position to keep the other aircraft in sight. If unable they should advise ATC which the A321 did not. This may be a pilot deviation. Quit wasting time; our TRACON's Quality Control offices' time; Area Supervisors' time and Controller's time processing this type of non event as an event.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller described an alledged error during light traffic and side-by visual approach procedures where one aircraft failed to use call signs when instructed to maintain visual separation.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other all phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other after flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: A Flight Attendant in my recurrent class notified the company on [date] that they tested positive for COVID-19. Company notified me [10 days later].  That is 10 days after Company was notified which I find to be completely unacceptable. I had a trip and could have exposed hundreds of passengers plus my crew.  I should also add that I exposed my family and I am a caregiver for my XX year old father and YY year old mother.  I find this to be an egregious safety concern in delay of notification since I shared a classroom and training aids to include donning the PBE and POB (Portable Oxygen Bottle) with someone who has since been confirmed positive.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being notified by company 10 days after another Flight Attendant tested positive for COVID-19.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: We arrived at the gate on time but were not permitted to board the aircraft until [closer to departure time]. The agents had the wheelchair passengers come down about 2 minutes after we boarded and were still checking equipment. The agents came down to close the door before all the passengers were even on the plane. The agent told me she was going to close the door right after the last person got on. I explained she could not do that as we needed all passengers seated and all [overhead bins] closed. After the last passenger boarded; I followed him down to aisle to close the bins. There was still a line of standing passengers all down the aisle. I told the agent not to close the door as it was a violation of an FAR. The #3 was standing at 2L/2R (boarding door) and also told the agent she couldn't close yet. The agent closed the door with at least 50% of bins open and at least 15-20 passengers standing.




Synopsis: A flight attendant aboard a B757-200 reported the passenger agent; despite several reminders it was inappropriate; closed the cabin door while passengers were still in the aisle and approximately half of the overhead bins were still open in violation of SOP and FARs.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PBI.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Single Pilot
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was conducting training on a radar position. We had Aircraft X on a vector of 310 degrees at 2;000 ft. This vector kept the aircraft away from a 2;500 ft MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) to the west but would have been too close to the final approach course at SUA. The trainee turned Aircraft X to a heading of 290 degrees; but failed to recognize the MVA and the aircraft busted the MVA.As an Instructor it is my responsibility to take over when I see a developing situation and the trainee has not acted on it. I saw the situation; but did not take over when I should have. In the future I will not allow the trainee to get into a situation that he may not be aware of. I will fix it and then debrief after the session about it.


Second narrative: I was flying on an IFR flight plan. Upon descending to land the controller asked me multiple times if I had a visual; upon which I replied negative as I was in IMC at 3;000 ft. The controller told me to continue and use the instrument approach procedure and descend to 2;000 ft. As I descended I told the controller that I had a visual and he then gave me a new heading and told me to climb to 3000 ft. As I turned to the new heading and proceeded to climb I was in IMC again. I misunderstood the controller as I thought I was cleared for the visual and descended and turned directly to the airport upon which I violated the IFR environment.


Synopsis: PBI TRACON Controller and a GA pilot reported miscommunication; which resulted in the aircraft descending below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201902
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Manuals; Company Policy
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: The current CBT [Computer Based Training] for CQ [Continuing Qualification Training] has a slide that reads in part '... Spare lithium batteries are any rechargeable batteries that are not installed in an electronic device.' Does this mean that when an FA commutes; and our bag is checked (or gate checked) that it is ok if our work tablet remains in the checked bag as the battery is installed inside? Or does this mean that it is not-ok? And it would not qualify to remain in the check bag? I am asking as a result of my recent interaction with the Flight Attendant Official social media group. The clarity provided does not line up with what is in the CQT slide in question. Suggestions: Enhance the clarity of text on [company website] and applicable FA [Flight Attendant] manual guidance.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported discrepancy between Qualification Training Hazmat material and Company Hazmat Policy.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise; we received a FWD Equip OVHT message. We ran the QRH for the issue. While that was being resolved; we received a Cabin Altitude Master Warning. We donned oxygen masks; attempted to control the cabin altitude. That didn't work; so we executed an [expedited] descent and [advised] ATC. They vectored us to the nearest suitable airport. Attempts to contact company in the air were unsuccessful due to high terrain. We landed without incident.Equipment cooling checklist should discuss going to OVRD in single pack operations and the possibility of a cabin altitude warning.


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


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing loss of cabin pressure related to single pack operation and a forward equipment overheat anomaly.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was in the adjacent Center airspace. A radar site was out of service so all aircraft at or below 23000 feet were to be on non-radar routing. The Radar Controller noticed that Aircraft X was flashing MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) at 11000 feet and below the MEA (Minimum Enroute Altitude) which was 12300 feet. He called the controller at the adjacent sector and asked if the aircraft was climbing. The controller seemed unaware that the airplane was below the MEA and said he would take care of it. He proceeded to climb the aircraft to 13000 feet. The controller should know the MEA in their sector.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported that the adjacent Center Sector was handing off an aircraft below the Minimum Enroute Altitude.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Night
Aircraft: Premier 1
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Alert
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff from TEB Runway 24 [our] aircraft climbed through 1;500 FT restriction by about 200 FT. The Tower had changed our runway from 01 to 24 and we made the changes in the FMS just prior to taxi. The pilot flying intended to fly the SID without using VNAV. The Runway 01 climb altitude of 2;000 FT was in the preselect for the Teterboro 8 departure; but was not selected to 1;500 after the runway change.The pilot flying briefed the proper procedure and the requirement to level off at 1;500 FT; but followed the flight director commands through 1;500 FT. We were given a frequency change just prior to 1;500 FT and the next Controller told cleared us to climb to 10;000 FT. After I selected 10;000 in preselect I noticed we were already climbing through 1;800 FT and that the pilot flying had not leveled off at 1;500 MSL. I estimate we were at about 1;700 FT when ATC's climb clearance was received.SOPs are being changed to emphasize the requirement to check that the preselect altitude be set to the first level off altitude on departure when not utilizing VNAV. Emphasis will also be placed on items to check/brief when runway/departure/arrival changes are made.




Synopsis: When ATC changed their departure runway out of TEB from 01 to 24 the flight crew of a Premier 1 failed to change the altitude preselect to the new initial SID altitude restriction of 1;500 MSL and the pilot flying failed to level off as required.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: MD-11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Wake turbulence encounter with aircraft [caused] upset approaching 60-degrees left bank. Arriving from south on autopilot; cleared visual approach to follow MD-11 from north which was established ILS 27R final approach behind another Embraer Jet; which slowed prematurely. As we were descending from 3;000 to 2;100 approximately 6 NM from JALTO ILS 27R Final Approach Fix on a dog-leg to 27R final and cleared behind MD-11 5-miles ahead; encountered wake turbulence; upset up to 60-degree left bank in approximately 1-second. Manually recovered; overriding autopilot; and immediately flying out of wake turbulence. Numerous EICAS faults encountered for autopilot; autothrottle; and probes. Continued hand-flying visual approach to normal landing. All EICAS faults cleared on the ground. Apparently the 50-knot north wind blew the MD-11 wake turbulence intact far south of the 27R ILS final rather than the 50-knot wind dissipating wake turbulence. Approach Control provided adequate warning our following MD-11. We heard Approach Control slow the MD-11 when the preceding Embraer Jet slowed prematurely ahead of the MD-11. We widened our turn to keep distance separation from MD-11. The wake turbulence upset was precisely like the recent simulator windshear training in severity and rapidity of roll-rate; except we immediately flew out of the wake turbulence. All passengers and flight attendants were seated with no alarm reported upon questioning Lead Flight Attendant.




Synopsis: ERJ-190 Captain reported wake vortex encounter from an MD-11 on approach to PHL resulting in a 60 degree uncommanded roll.