elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On vectors to ZZZ in the vicinity of ZZZZZ waypoint cleared to and level at 8;000 ft. Traffic was reported VFR at 7;500 ft. Autopilot was on and we were Alt Hold at 8;000 ft. Never got a visual of the traffic but TCAS showed it 500 ft. below. TCAS momentarily showed traffic at 400 ft. below which triggered a TCAS RA. We disconnected the autopilot and auto throttles and followed the RA climbing approximately 250 ft. Almost immediately TCAS reported clear of traffic. We simultaneously reported the RA to ATC and they also showed us clear of traffic. We then continued our approach. ATC reported the traffic prior to the event and told us to expect lower once clear. It was a light civil that had us in sight but we never got a visual on them. We were coming over the mountains and it is possible thermals might have caused the light civil to momentary climb causing the RA. Our instruments showed us steady at 8;000 ft.


Second narrative: We were cleared for the visual and cleared to land on Runway XXR by Tower. We were descending on profile when Tower reported traffic at our ten o'clock 700 feet below type unknown. I immediately leveled off and went high on the approach and started my scan for the traffic. TCAS also showed the traffic 700 feet below. I finally got a visual on the traffic just before we went over the top of them. The traffic continued north as we were heading west to land on Runway XXR. Because we were clear of the traffic we continued down on the approach now high. We were able to get back on path and make a stable approach to landing.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported a TCAS RA event while on approach.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BZN.Airport, MT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BZN
ATC / advisory: Tower BZN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving from ZZZ; myself and the Captain were preparing for an ILS to Runway 12 based on available weather at hand. Once handed off to Approach Control; we were instructed to expect the RNP 30. Given our close proximity to the airport; I scrambled quickly to load the FMS and review the changes. I failed to notice the available IAFs available and was instead hastily looking for one of the IFs in the FMS. Given our plan to conduct a visual approach and use the RNP for guidance; I elected to select 'no approach VIAs' and to add the additional fixes requested by ATC. As we progressed on the approach; we got multiple GPWS alerts while in VMC; including 'pull up.' The Captain discontinued the approach and elected for a go-around followed by the published hold to troubleshoot. We later completed an ILS to Runway 12; circle 30 without event. Thoroughly review approach plate and recognize the appropriate approach VIA option. If needing additional time; request delay vectors.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving multiple GPWS alerts on approach to BZN airport.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Upon initial review of our weather package and Dispatch Release; it appeared we were not legal to land at destination based on the weather forecast.   The wind forecast placed us out of limits for a runway that was planned and forecast to be wet-fair.   When I called Dispatch to inquire; I experienced a confrontational Dispatcher and seemingly not sharing any care about my concern for legality.  Only upon my request did he update the forecast.  His new forecast changed the wind speed by a one knot crosswind component and that was enough to make us legal.  I am concerned that I can be presented paperwork that essentially tells me we were not legal to go (but only after a complete review of all the planning material) and the Dispatcher not having any awareness of that.  Then when I sought support; I instead received a confrontational attitude that even later morphed into questioning my judgment if the need to divert was likely (as the weather clearly indicated a higher likelihood than normal).  The Dispatcher also did not express any concern nor acknowledge my concern for being so close to a limit with real safety implications (landing on an icy runway in blowing snow conditions) outside of the legal question.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain questions the legality of forecasted arrival weather. He is met with confrontation and attitude upon contacting the Dispatcher to receive an updated forecast and discuss the paperwork.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VKX.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G VKX
ATC / advisory: CTAF VKX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: While landing on runways at VKX at night; the PAPI on each runway (in this case; Runway 6; but Runway 24 has the same problem) is unreliable. For example; coming on Runway 6 the NOTAM says; 'DCA 03/236 VKX RWY 6 PAPI UNUSABLE 3 DEG LEFT OR RIGHT OF COURSE 1403131725-PERM.' However; there is only one light on the P2L PAPI that changes from White to Red as you get too low. The AIM says there should be two lights. Most pilots at the airport are skeptical of the PAPI; so they don't use it. This 'communal' knowledge tends to work out because the VKX airport is in the DC-FRZ; so there are few (if any) visitors to the airport. However; the NOTAM and maintenance system needs to be upgraded to better disseminate this information.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reports that VKX NOTAM for PAPI lights references unusability beyond three degrees left or right of center; but no mention of lights being out; which there appear to be.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC; Special Use SUA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the high west departures. Special Use Airspace (SUA) was active 21000 feet to 25000 feet. There was weather in the area mostly to the southeast. There were a lot of reroutes to my sector. Also there were Traffic Management restrictions for 15 Miles in Trail over two of my routes. Normal operations we climb the departures to 23000 feet. When the SUA is active we climb southwest bound departures to 20000 feet until they clear the active airspace. I accidentally climbed Aircraft X to 23000 feet like normal operations. The airspace has not been active in months so it is not a common thing anymore.




Synopsis: PCT Controller reported climbing an aircraft into military special use airspace.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) and I were working on checking the adjustment of the door warning targets reference Aircraft Maintenance Manual (M/M) 32-61-32; per paperwork we installed [landing] gear pins and body gear door lock.  Due to hangar bay-3 APU run procedures; we had to stop work and push back plane out of the hangar.  After that; we started the rig check of [proximity] sensor which required to close right wing gear door and check gaps and remove body gear door lock before closing of [right wing gear] door per Maintenance Manual (M/M) 32-00-30 201.  I forgot to remove the [body gear door] lock due to distraction of moving aircraft which resulted in right wing gear door making contact with body gear door lock.


Second narrative: While accomplishing the adjustment of the right wing gear door proximity sensor; reference Maintenance Manual (M/M) 32-61-32; we installed body gear door lock to gain access to upper side of wing door.  In order to raise gear doors; hydraulic system -1 and -4 need to be pressurized which requires the APU to be run.  After repositioning the aircraft to run the APU in the hangar; due to local policy; we then continued our job of checking the sensor adjustment.  When [right wing] gear door was raised and then lowered; damage to aft edge [of right wing door] was noticed due to contact with body gear door lock.  Time constraint was an issue due to aircraft on XB:30pm [departure] routing and XA:00am due on gate time.


Synopsis: Two line mechanics report a B747-400 right wing gear door trailing edge was damaged after making contact with the right wing body gear door lock.  Mechanics were checking the adjustments of the landing gear door proximity warning targets.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Passenger came on the plane with mask but then when he was seated he took it off. I made an announcement about airline policy to wear a mask on the plane. Passenger didn't comply; I went over and asked him why he wasn't wearing a mask; he said that he had a medical condition and that he didn't have to. I looked at the manifest on my device; there was no notification about his medical condition. I asked him if he notified our gate agent and he said he talked to them about it; and they said it was OK. When the gate agent came on board I asked her to go talk to the passenger; because she said that no one talked to her about any medical conditions. After gate agent spoke to passenger; she got back to us and said that he claims that he has a medical condition; and that he might have talk to someone about it but it wasn't her. She said that she will make a note about this passengers situation.  Can we please make it clear to the passengers about providing medical documents to gate agents. This is frustrating for flight attendants because we can't force someone to wear a face masks; and we can't take them off flights because he claims he has a medical condition and he can claim discrimination.  I don't know if this passenger has a medical condition or not but there needs to be something done to help flight attendants and gate agents to our job and help our passengers.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported a passenger was not wearing a COVID-19 mask because he stated that he had a medical condition; but was unable to provide any documentation.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Ferry flight from ZZZ to ZZZ1. After takeoff from ZZZ; I retracted the gear and tapped the brakes to stop the wheel rotation. I did not realize that the left caliper had stuck and had locked the wheel at this time. Upon landing at ZZZ1 on Runway 13 the left brake caliper was locked up and would not release. This caused the aircraft to start to skid sideways to the left and ultimately finished with a slow ground loop. There was zero damage to the aircraft; and after stopping I tapped the brakes a couple times and the left caliper released. Upon inspection; it was noted that the caliper had some corrosion and did not retract to release the left brake.




Synopsis: Pilot flying SeaRey aircraft encountered seized brake upon landing.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Center went to DARC that evening against the recommendations of the West Area workers since there was a line of weather moving towards the center during the course of the late night shift. Because of the location of this weather; I believe that some of the aircraft were off their original routes after deviating. There was a lack of flight plan information being given out to the controllers from ETMS strips during the busiest time of the shift. All the info on aircraft was being manually coordinated through the D-Side from ZMP and ZKC to us. There was also a computer glitch that showed two aircraft coming from ZMP whom we started tracks on swapping beacon codes. Therefore we had to cancel tracks and start them on new beacon codes. This happened twice. When controllers tell the supervisors that they would not recommend going to DARC during weather moving into range; they should seriously consider rescheduling the computer going down.




Synopsis: ZAU Controller described a supervisory decision to change to DARC operations with weather moving coupled with other computer anomalies; the reporter suggesting supervisors heed controllers recommendations regarding DARC scheduling.
Date: 202201
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: MEL; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The 757 fleet (and possibly others) has a deferral that allows the aircraft to operate for a specific number of cycles if a passenger cell phone or other electronic device falls down a gap in the cabin sidewall into the cargo pit and cannot be located. Maintenance usually tries to look for the phone; to include disassembling some of the cargo pit panels - but if they can't find it in a 'reasonable' amount of time then a deferral is created and additional flights are authorized.The FAA website says this about devices with lithium batteries: 'Devices containing lithium metal batteries or lithium-ion batteries; including - but not limited to - smartphones; tablets; cameras and laptops; should be kept in carry-on baggage. If these devices are packed in checked baggage; they should be turned completely off; protected from accidental activation and packed so they are protected from damage.'We have provisions for Dangerous Goods being shipped as freight; being used by crew on the airplane; as part of installed equipment; and being carried by passengers or crew on their person; in carry-on bags; and in checked bags. There are no Dangerous Goods provisions providing for lost dangerous goods floating around the airplane somewhere.The concern here is the potential for damage and subsequent fire. We won't even let a passenger move a seat if they drop their phone in the seat - yet somehow; it's okay to drop a phone into the cargo area where it could easily be damaged by the cargo loading system or something else? How is this safe? Or even legal? If a lost device with lithium battery gets crushed and catches on fire; we are not going to be able to fight that fire.I'd like to know specifically what kind of risk analysis (if any) was done for this deferral.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported concerns with the deferral of lost lithium battery powered electronic devices in the cabin.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Sector 82/83 was combined; there was weather south of my airspace in non-radar in Sector 88. The amount of traffic that was routed down L453 and L452 was beyond too much to be able to coordinate properly with other sectors and talk to the aircraft at the same time. I had a hand off come over so I could concentrate on communicating with the aircraft. In the hour that I sat at the sector there was 8 planes routed over L453. L452 had 15 aircraft routed at the same time as the aircraft on the parallel route. This is entirely unreasonable to have that many aircraft filing on those two routes especially when there is weather south of the airspace and side by side cannot be done. The workload was too much for me and the Hand Off Controller. The planes were deviating south and the routes were bad going to their destinations. Many planes had to be re-routed or given an even altitude southbound (IAFDOF) in order to coordinate all of this traffic. Washington Center was late on sending hand offs and giving us wrong for direction aircraft in order to keep them all separated. There were 23 planes in the course of less than an hour that were going southbound. ZDC's TMU should have seen that they were handing off 15 planes to us and given us some time between these aircraft or had a restriction on their board. We do not have the same kind of separation standards that they do in radar and they should know this.   When it is proposed to have as many aircraft as there were over one fix there needs to be a restriction in place so this doesn't happen again. There is weather over the ocean and ZDC should be able to provide at least 10 minutes between planes at altitude. Wrong for direction should only be used as a last resort.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller reports of an overabundance of traffic that is diverting due to weather along two usable routes.