elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OAK.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach; Descent
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Second aircraft: A-1 Husky
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While conducting on the job training to a trainee; Aircraft X; a Gulfstream was on a Visual Approach and descending for the airport. Aircraft Y; a Husky; departed a satellite airport and their data block indicated they were requesting a VFR area tour. [Both aircraft] became a conflict 3 miles just inside the Class Charlie airspace. I tried to have the trainee issue a traffic alert to [the Gulfstream] but he was slow and gave an incomplete traffic call instead. The pilot of [the Gulfstream] responded that they had a TCAS RA and were responding. I then had the developmental issue the go around procedure to [the Gulfstream]; a heading 315 and maintain 3000 feet. The pilot of the Husky never checked onto our frequency until he was inside the Class Charlie airspace and after the Gulfstream was already going around. The closest proximity I observed was 300 feet vertically. The Husky was never given the Brasher warning and transitioned through Tower Class C airspace. The area where [both Aircraft] became a conflict is a constant hot spot for aircraft arriving with aircraft landing or departing this adjacent airport. There needs to be either an airspace redesign or a better route for aircraft into; or out of this airport so they are not a constant conflict with other airport arrivals. Also perhaps an altitude restriction for VFR airport departures to keep them below aircraft landing at other airports.




Synopsis: ATC Tower Controller reported a VFR aircraft not in communication violated Class C airspace and caused an arriving aircraft; on short final; to respond to a TCAS/RA and go around.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Design; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: It is almost a daily thing. We lose computers. Today we lost communications; plotting; and ACARS all at the same time (losing all three is a daily event). Today I was talking to a flight that couldn't get landing data and was asking for my help. Today's malfunction came in the middle of this conversation.  We were told by the company to exit all computer related systems while IT worked on computers until further notice.  Earlier today; in an unrelated event; I received an ACARS message that I should have gotten hours earlier. In this case; I got a message about a takeoff delay. I received it after the aircraft was already in the gate at its destination. Not being able to talk to a plane in mid conversation while the system is down is kinda big. They are expecting me [to be available] on this one means of communication.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher related concern regarding routine and frequent computer related outages primarily related to communications with the flights for which he is responsible.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Caravan 208A
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climbout of ZZZ southbound just north of ZZZ1; ATC called out a Cessna 208 at our 12 o Clock and below us. We spotted the traffic and immediately after; a RA was triggered and it told us to monitor vertical speed. The traffic passed 400 feet below us and then we received a clear of conflict message. Flight continued uneventfully.Pilot of Cessna seemed to start a climb. ATC could have done a better job of keeping traffic separated.Always be vigilant of other traffic; especially on a VFR CAVU day.




Synopsis: CL-350 pilot reported an NMAC during departure climbout.  The conflicting aircraft was reported to be 400 feet below.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Vacuum System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After initial climb out to 4000 feet; while being vectored; my student was given a heading of 320; with which we complied. We were then given a heading of 360. Based on our heading indicator; we turned to and were tracking a 360 heading. Moments later; ATC informed us that we had turned too far and to immediately turn back to 360. Since we looked to be on the correct heading; I verified the Heading Indicator (HI) to the compass; and it was off. I reset the HI; and turned to correct our heading. Again ATC said we were way off and needed to correct. Suspecting a problem; I checked our heading against the compass and the GPS; and reset the HI again; while correcting heading based on the compass and GPS. It became evident that the HI was not working correctly; because each time I tried to set it; it immediately was off again. I informed ATC that we were having a problem with our HI; which I was attempting to resolve. At this point the attitude indicator also began to wander; and it was evident we were having a vacuum system failure. I took control from the student (to avoid a potential unusual attitude and loss of control). ATC contacted us again; and it was evident that I had missed a radio call or two while bringing the plane back under control. I informed ATC that we had a vacuum system failure and requested vectors back to our departure point.ATC then provided us with assistance; and we received no-gyro turns and vectoring back towards our departure point. As soon as we were back in VMC; I cancelled IFR and landed VFR.Under similar conditions in the future; I would suspect a vacuum system problem earlier and listened more carefully for ATC calls while troubleshooting.




Synopsis: C182 instructor pilot reported ATC advised them of a heading deviation that he soon realized was related to a vacuum system malfunction.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: EICAS/EAD/ECAM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: B777 aircraft had a Non-Essential Equipment and Furnishings (NEF) [Chapter] 31-40A [deferral] issued 133 days ago for the Fuel Synoptic Display missing the green flow bars to the engines. The flight crew questioned the legality of using NEF 31-40A instead of MEL 28-19 for the fuel synoptic display. I agreed with the flight crew that MEL 28-19 should be used. However; doing a review of the NEF that was issued 133 days prior and finding three other B777 aircraft with the same problem and also placarded under NEF 31-40A; I suggested to the flight crew that both Boeing Engineering and [our] Air Carrier's Engineering were aware of this and that they were working on a software revision to correct the problem and that is why we were using the NEF instead of the MEL. I told the flight crew that if they insisted on using the MEL then the aircraft would be out of service because the MEL would be expired. The flight crew elected to fly with the NEF.The following morning my management was made aware of this problem and all of the affected aircraft were assigned No Fix No Fly [status] to have the problem corrected per Boeing 777-pilot report and Fault Isolation Manual (FIM) 28-22-00 which was redlined and issued by [our] Air Carrier Engineering. Incorrect deferral reference used.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Controller informs a flight crew that if they did not accept a Non-Essential Equipment and Furnishings (NEF) type deferral of their EICAS Fuel Synoptic Display missing the green flow bars to the engines on a B777; than their aircraft would be taken out of service; because a standard MEL 28-19 would have expired. The NEF had been issued 133 days prior.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Light: Night
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I assumed control of the sector approximately 5 minutes prior to discovering this issue. The previous R-side controller was still present when I saw this. Aircraft departed ZZZ-ZZZ1 according to the pilot they were cleared to ZZZ1; however the destination that I was shown was ZZZ2. When I saw the aircraft free-tracking I questioned the previous R-side and asked if he had turned the aircraft for traffic prior to me working. He stated negative. The aircraft was approximately 40 miles north of his route to ZZZ2. I asked the pilot if they were direct ZZZ2; the pilot stated they weren't going to ZZZ2 they were going to ZZZ1. I told him that I showed his destination was ZZZ2. The pilot stated that they had two flight plans in the system; they were originally supposed to go to ZZZ2 but they changed it to ZZZ1 and that's what they were cleared to on departure. The aircraft's route line showed him leaving my airspace to D46; the actual aircraft was heading for D18 and then to D46. I updated the route back to ZZZ2 while this was going on to progress the flight plan to D18; once realizing the error when the aircraft departed I re-cleared the aircraft to ZZZ1 and changed his destination to show the correct destination; and immediately handed it off to D18. When researching this incident; a search on the aircraft showed the route was updated three separate times; since it departed ZZZ. The aircraft traveled 850 miles before this error was finally discovered. This was a particularly dangerous situation because ZZZ2 and ZZZ1 are only 35 miles apart from one another; and even though it was only 35 miles apart the difference in MEA's from ZZZ2 to ZZZ1 is 1000 feet. According to ZDV ZZZ2 MEA is 080 and ZZZ1 MEA is 090. Also there is no STAR for ZZZ2 that we issue however there is one for ZZZ1 that takes the aircraft northeast away from the two DEN RNAV arrival streams where the aircraft are descending on their own. Aside from that if the ZDV controller descended the aircraft to the MEA for ZZZ2 of 080 and the aircraft flew past on the way to ZZZ1 with an MEA of 090 controller flight into terrain; or a cell phone tower could have occurred.




Synopsis: Controller questioned pilot about destination after he saw the aircraft tracking north of anticipated track and discovered two flight plans on file.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Stabilizer electric yoke trim worked well on the ground. On climbout; the Captain's trim switches would not work. He gave me the aircraft to see if mine worked. They did not. I engaged the autopilot; because that is another way that stabilizer trim gets an input. That didn't work either. Ran the Stabilizer Trim Inoperative Checklist. Requested priority handling with ATC. Manually trimmed unintended handles on trim wheel. Flaps 15. Overweight landing. Touchdown very smooth. Equipment followed us to Ramp Area. Wrote up stabilizer trim electric inoperative and overweight landing. Chief Pilot onboard and talked with us; no issues about continuing our trip. Deplaned. Got a different airplane and flew to ZZZ1. We followed all SOP. Uneventful with highly successful outcome. Trained well to handle this type of event. We had both noted that this was written up before. So; neither were surprised when it did happen again.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported both sets of stabilizer trim switches became inoperative after takeoff.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Wrong Dispatch Release; arrived in operations about 1 hour 10 minutes before departure and Company flight plan (release 1) had already been printed by station personnel. After review; the Captain called the Dispatcher to clarify his dispatch remarks about optimum altitudes en route. While the Captain was signing and printing the release; I stepped to the aircraft to start the exterior inspection. Cockpit setup was not rushed. During push-back we received final weights which didn't quite make sense. TOW had increased from Rel 1; but the line TOW CHANGE indicated minus 1;900 LBS. We dismissed the minus as an error by Load Planning; thinking it should be a plus. We got new takeoff data for the final takeoff weight and completed our departure. Later in the flight; we realized Load Planning had not made an error; there was a release 2 for zero fuel weight increase. The final weights reflected 1;900 LBS less than Release 2. In hindsight; the Captain probably signed release 2; but both our copies of the flight plan were release 1. Route verification procedures were accomplished with Release 1 without us realizing it was not current. Departure time was [after midnight] Domicile time. Circadian cycle/fatigue was possibly a factor.




Synopsis: First Officer reports departing on an ETOPS flight using Release 1 with amended takeoff weights; to discover enroute that the amended weights were for Release 2. Fortunately the route had not changed.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: 5 minutes prior to departure I put a cable into my EFB backup battery. I noticed the lights flashed and never recalled seeing this before. About 2 seconds later I noticed smoke coming out of the battery. I tried to turn the battery off; but the lights remained on. Multiple attempts to turn the device off were not successful. We decided to leave the battery with the supervisor so we could depart. I realized after takeoff that we should have contacted dispatch prior to block out instead of enroute. Both EFBs had a high charge and the Captain had his fully charged backup battery on board.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a smoking external battery when it was connected to the EFB prior to departure. Attempts to turn it off were unsuccessful. The battery was disconnected and left with a company agent.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the climb the First Officer reported that the airplane 'wanted' to roll left. A couple of minutes later I observed that the left inboard roll spoiler was rapidly and intermittently moving between fully retracted and partially extended. Up to about one quarter scale full deflection. No caution lights were illuminated. After leveling off at 14;000 ft.; the spoiler remained fully retracted. At this point; we were about halfway to our destination; so we elected to continue to our destination. I advised Dispatch and Maintenance.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that a spoiler malfunction resulted in a maintenance event.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DTW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: It was snowing sideways on an early morning departure out of DTW. Ramp was mostly covered; making following taxi lines more difficult. We were cleared to taxi to the Central Deice Pad via [Taxiways] K; E2; and E3. Nowhere on our charts is E3 shown. E2 is shown going all the way to the deice pad. After searching unsuccessfully to find Taxiway E3; we queried Ground and they informed us to follow the routing shown as E2 on our charts to the deice pad (Spot 7). It would be nice if this were corrected (E3 shown) on our charts to avoid adding this additive condition every time any crew deices in the frozen tundra of Detroit.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported taxiway E3 at DTW is not published on their charts.