elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202108
Location: BHB.Tower, ME
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Micro UAS; Multirotor
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Observer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: New operator of sUAS asked for tips from an acquaintance who is a private pilot and commercial remote operator. With a small group of onlookers the new operator demonstrated the drones capability looking intently at display and launching it within 2 ft of an onlookers face. The new operator immediately launched the drone over a ridge of trees and out of sight head down on the display. I commented that he needed to have the drone in sight at all times to which he laughed and replied 'No. That can't be; what would be the fun in that' he proceeded to inform me that because the UAS was below 0.55 lbs that it was exempt from FAA regulation. As the new operator blew past 400 feet AGL he asked what was the max altitude again? To which I responded accordingly. A round of laughter commenced as the operator received a notification on his display that he may be violating the law. The new operator reached a maximum horizontal distance of 1;600 feet which he complained was too little and was sure the software was preventing him from going farther as he had gone 6;000 feet without issue before.From takeoff to landing this operator never had visual contact with the drone.The new operator flew recklessly in a corridor popular with manned commercial scenic tours; GA aircraft sight seeing; and GA aircraft coming in to BHB.When informed of the regulations the operator laughed; indicated that it did not apply to him; and if he were to get in trouble he would blame it on a blog post he read. Blatant disregard for FAA regulations; the safety of others; and no expectation of consequences.FAA should make something similar to the commercial remote operator course for recreational operators and make it mandatory for any UAS that has the capability of exceeding 400 feet vertical or horizontal.FAA should also crack down on manufacturers who are clearly advertising their products and encouraging use in disagreement with law.




Synopsis: Eyewitness observed a UAS pilot possibly violating FAA regulations by flying above 400 feet and beyond visual line of sight.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working all the satellite sectors. I had a fairly decent amount of traffic and there was considerable frequency congestion. I released the aircraft via the automated rundown list. The aircraft was a south-bound jet. Initial instructions from tower are normally a 050 heading and a climb to 2;000 ft. The aircraft departed and he appeared much farther south than I had anticipated him being. I was dealing with many other priority transmissions. I heard an aircraft say shallow turn to zero five zero. I can't remember if I radar Identified the aircraft; but as soon as I registered that the plane was far too shallow to avoid the 2;200 ft. MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) he was nearing; I turned the plane to a 030 heading for the climb. I was just trying to remain west of the depicted obstacle at that point because there were no safe altitudes I could climb to for crossing traffic. I had 2 VFR aircraft at 2;500 ft. and an IFR aircraft at 3;000 ft.; 4;000 ft.; and 5;000 ft. that were all a factor. As soon as I had divergence with my traffic that was a factor; I issued a climb. Tower should assure that aircraft are turning to avoid the MVA. I don't feel we have the space available to not use 3;000 ft. in that area for other aircraft inbound just to ensure that those releases can make that turn. Weather was not an issue. The subsequent vectors the aircraft received were made quickly so I'm not sure why a shallow turn was being used. Had the plane come off correctly I would have been able to climb him in front of the VFR arrivals instead of holding underneath. I am also unaware if tower instructed the shallow turn due to a left downwind aircraft I had given them at 2;500 ft. but it's a possibility.




Synopsis: A TRACON Departure Controller reported a departing aircraft made an unusually shallow turn on departure and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure at 10;000 feet; Flight Attendant called the cockpit to report odor in the cabin and one Flight Attendant sick. We [requested ATC priority handling]; ran appropriate checklists and returned to ZZZ. Upon arrival to the gate medical personnel assisted.


Second narrative: During climbout the number one Flight Attendant advised that there were strong fumes in the cabin. The Captain and I were also advised that the number two Flight Attendant was not feeling well because of the fumes. The Captain advised me to [request special handling] for an immediate return to ZZZ. We ran appropriate checklists and landed. Crash Fire Rescue was called and responded to inspect the aircraft to ensure there was no outside indication of an issue. We [returned to] the terminal and had affected persons treated by medical personnel.Because the cause is unknown to me...I am not aware of any mitigation strategies other that allotting more resources in understanding; addressing; mitigating; and avoiding cabin fume events.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported being notified by the Flight Attendant in charge during departure climb of a strong cabin odor causing one Flight Attendant to experience health issues. Flight crew requested special handling to return to departure airport and executed a safe landing.
Date: 202011
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other all
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Workload is starting to reach critical mass for the current staffing level.  Between normal flights and adhocs; ZZZ desk had 31 flights load up with 15 to release (last week 30 flights with 15 to release).  Many flights between the XA00-XB00 hour were sent under the allotted time as stated per the Manual due to the vast geographic area; reroute around storm; numerous domestic flights tagged at the end of international flights; last minute ATC Zero; and COVID cleaning.  Other desks are also getting workload saturated due to charters and adhocs.  Management was notified last week to evaluate staffing levels and workload.Suggestions - 1) Increase staffing levels to account for the workload. 2) Keep current staffing level and send domestic legs to the Domestic desk.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported concerns with current staffing levels; especially when workload is increased due to weather diverts; last minute ATC closures for sanitizing and  international plus domestic re-routes.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: UIN.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Cessna Twin Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF UIN
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Rolling for takeoff on Runway 31 in Quincy; just prior to liftoff I noticed an aircraft beginning to cross the end of the runway; unannounced. Being as we were now at liftoff speed; I continued the takeoff without further issue. The incursion aircraft was approximately 3;000 feet ahead of us at the time of liftoff. I had made radio calls prior to leaving the ramp; taxiing out to the runway; holding short; and rolling for takeoff. The other aircraft had not made any calls or responded to any.Always stay vigilant for other aircraft or vehicles in the area that may not have radios.




Synopsis: Twin Cessna pilot reported an aircraft crossed the end of his takeoff runway without announcing position while he was on the takeoff roll.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Rain; Thunderstorm; 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shooting a Nav ILS with a pt; announcing our position with Center and CTAF; TCAS showed no traffic in area with center telling us no traffic in the area we get a RA of climb; showed no prior warning out to 6 miles; within 1 mile it tells us to climb to 300 FT below; we climbed up an additional 500 FT; the RA turned into a TA. We continued the [approach] with pt; inbound on apt we picked up airport visual. Only then did previous traffic make traffic report. Collision was avoided; but seems really close when IMC! Traffic was VMC; for their practice [approach]; we were IMC due to the terrain in the area not allowing us to descend into VMC.




Synopsis: The pilot of a BE200 complied with a TCAS RA while conducting an ILS approach to a non-towered airport in IMC.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: After the coffee pot leaked; a Flight Attendant reported a burning like smell from around the forward oven. No smoke or fumes. Smell stopped after they turned the oven off. We were about 15 to 20 minutes from descent. During a bathroom break both me and the First Officer did not smell or see anything wrong. No circuit breakers popped either. Since there was no smoke or fumes; the odor stopped; and we were a few minutes from descent I elected to continue with a normal descent and landing. I concluded it was most likely due to the excessive leak from the coffee maker. I contacted dispatch with a message in the air; and once parked I wrote the oven smell up in the Maintenance log to have Maintenance do an inspection.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported a leaking coffee pot caused a burning smell.
Date: 201308
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we approached our assigned parking spot the Marshaller gave us the signal to stop. I stopped the aircraft; set the parking brake; and shut down the Number 1 engine. As we waited for external electrical power to be connected; I removed my headset and turned to stow it in its cubby. At this point; my First Officer shouted that we were moving. We both immediately applied toe brake pressure and the aircraft came to an abrupt stop. We glanced down at the center console and confirmed that the parking brake was indeed set. The aircraft travelled approximately 6 to 10 feet with the Number 2 engine at idle thrust and the parking brake set. The Mechanic hooked up and told us that the aircraft would have to be pushed back into its parking spot with a tug. I told him that we had had a parking brake failure and were holding toe brake pressure to keep the aircraft from moving. Fortunately no ramp personnel were injured. The aircraft nose wheel struck a chock but neither the aircraft nor the ramp equipment was damaged.


Second narrative: [No additional information from Narrative #2.]


Synopsis: After setting the parking brake upon gate arrival the flight crew of an A300 was surprised when the aircraft; with an engine still running pending connection of ground power; moved forward several feet. The aircraft was stopped using toe brakes which were functional.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We briefed the Pre-Departure Clearance (PDC); which stated; as usual; 'climb via SID'; but failed to notice that the usual verbiage of 'except maintain 10;000 feet had been omitted. In that section; it said 'Climb via SID; Expect 330...'. I think that both of us saw the 'Expect' and erroneously read what we expected to see; Except.' We set 10;000 as the clearance limit. On takeoff; the tower controller said; 'RNAV KIDNG; cleared for takeoff...'. We climbed out; and were switched to DEN Departure. When I checked in; I said; 'out of 8;000 on the EXTAN 4; except maintaining 10;000'.We leveled at 10;000 Feet; and were not surprised to be kept down; as two aircraft passed by overhead on arrival into DEN. After they were well clear; and no other traffic appeared (maybe a minute later); I asked the controller 'confirm that you want us to remain at 10;000.' He said no; that we should have been cleared to climb via SID. Coincidentally; he then queried three aircraft behind us what clearance they had been given. Two replied that they had not been cleared to climb via SID; and one had. The controller then told us to climb and maintain FL230; and we continued on our way.As we continued; we re-read the PDC carefully and noticed our mistake. In any other airport; we would have just put the SID top altitude in (FL230); and taken off. The long conditioning of the same procedure being used in DEN for [a while]; then changed overnight; did catch us. Interestingly; the departure controller; who was used to hearing our 'except maintaining 10;000' check in; did not catch what I said either. I think we read what we expected to read; and he heard what he had been hearing for years; and neither of us caught it.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported not detecting a change in the normal clearance for the EXTAN4 departing DEN to maintain 10;000 feet. The actual clearance was to climb via the SID.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Interior Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I show up for duty to fly on aircraft in ZZZZ. We had mechanical issue and with all the passengers on board was performing my FA (Flight Attendant) duties at C1 position. After a few hours on the ground; announcement was made that the passengers will disembark the aircraft. FAs were directed to perform duties. I had to collect menu cards and customer survey forms and carry them on a tray. After the collection I returned to front galley and due to heavy people present waited few minutes on the right side in front galley. Then proceeded with the tray (with the forms) and followed the Lead FA towards L1 storage closet to store the forms. Not being aware that the maintenance bay hole was open; within couple steps I suddenly found myself falling down into the hole still holding the tray full of forms. I was not able to move for a few minutes and had a lot of sharp pain on the right side of my back and right arm. With help from Maintenance I was lifted and transferred to flight deck. I was able to move but was in pain. After returning to hotel; with the help of coworkers I went to [the hospital] in ZZZZ.It is very urgent issue. Any maintenance floor opening must be blocked at all times during opening for maintenance work. This accident happened because that open hole was not secure or had any signs of danger or proceed with caution sign. When the floor bay area is open FA activity should be suspended or limited.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported falling down an open maintenance hatch while performing duties.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ4
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ3
Second aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was transiting from ZZZ1 to ZZZ; VFR;  beneath Class B at 1000 ft and circumventing ZZZ2 [military] Class D airspace to the southeast; when I got a traffic alert.  I spotted a C130 to my right; about 500 feet above and 2000-3000 feet horizontally.  In watching him and turning out of his path; I inadvertently climbed to 1260 feet; into the Class B airspace.  I immediately descended back into unrestricted airspace.




Synopsis: Single pilot reported an inadvertent airspace violation which maneuvering to avoid other traffic.