elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: ZZZ Center closed due to COVID cleaning.We had come into ZZZ [airport] after ZZZ Center closed. We received a new trip to ZZZ1. I was concerned about duty time; but the director of operations determined that it could be done. Also; upper management; had told us to 'turn and burn' in ZZZ. The director of operations had filed a flight plan on or near land. The clearance we received was far from shore; due to ZZZ Center being closed. Due to concern over running out of duty time and company time pressure; the modified routing was not reviewed until we were established in cruise flight. I have been furloughed for several months recently; so I haven't given any thought to my company's lack of authorization to operate in Class 2 airspace. I have done so in the past in other employment positions in other organizations. I reverted to previous thinking in those positions and made a decision to continue to ZZZ1.We completed the flight uneventfully and landed in ZZZ1 as planned. No ATC concerns were voiced.I believe this is; of course; primarily due to the effects of the COVID pandemic; as so many life issues have been affected by this unprecedented event.However; all parties involved should have slowed down and thought more about all of the factors involved.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported not reviewing a modified route until after being airborne; which was too far off shore; and possibly running out of duty time.  This was due to an ATC Center closing down for COVID-19 cleaning.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was giving a 30-day skill check to radar trainee. Aircraft X called airborne; looking for an IFR clearance. They were given a squawk code; identified and reported an altitude of 11000 feet. At this point; they were leaving an area with a Minimum IFR Altitude of 14200 feet; moving into a Minimum IFR Altitude polygon of 15300 feet. They were given a clearance to '[destination] via [fix]; then as filed. Climb and maintain flight level two three zero.' The pilot was not asked if they could maintain terrain and obstruction clearance above the MIA altitudes. The developmental believes he was in compliance with 7110.65 4-2-8 d. and no violation took place with regard to terrain. I am uncertain how they could have known the aircraft could climb in VFR conditions; and I believe the clearance 'via [fix]' would shift the responsibility for terrain and obstacle clearance from the pilot to the FAA; as per 7110.65 4-2-8 (d.1. NOTE) An MOR (Mandatory Occurrence Report) has been entered for this incident; and I am requesting clarification as to the wording and rationale behind 7110.65 4-2-8 d. I would also like clarification as to the FAA's opinion about best practices with regard to VFR to IFR clearances.I feel 4-2-8 d. is unclear in its intent. It gives a course of action for a pilot who cannot climb in VFR conditions; but does not give a clear indication for how to determine this or what to do if a pilot can climb VMC. In addition; the additional NOTE is both broad and ambiguous in its ability to shift responsibility to the FAA. '...do not assign (or imply) specific course guidance that will (or could) be in effect below the MIA or MEA.' In terms of defining and following our 'best practices;' I would suggest dropping 4-2-8 d and providing clear guidance not to issue any IFR clearance until a pilot is either at or above the MIA/MEA or has indicated they can maintain their own terrain and obstruction clearance.




Synopsis: ZOA Supervisor reported a trainee issued an IFR clearance to an aircraft that was below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 202008
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: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was Captain on Aircraft X; ZZZ to ZZZ1 today.  A large family traveling together with some adolescent children created a disturbance at the gate area and continued after boarding.  The station CSM [Customer Service Manager] tried to help contain their behavior; however; after my FA asked one of the children to wear their mask properly once boarded; the family took exception and caused a stir using unacceptable language.  I stepped back to salvage the situation and calm the passengers; but I was not successful; and I asked for several of them to deplane.  Local security and both station managers and in flight managers arrived to assist.  Good work by the local ZZZ CSM allowed us to only remove the X adults and the several children.  This resulted in a delay; of which we made up some enroute.  Flight was uneventful otherwise and several passengers stated appreciation for our handling of the situation.CSM attempted to preempt any problems prior to boarding.  She was a great CSM.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a family was removed from a flight during boarding due non compliance with face mask policy.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We built 2 waypoints F160C and F131B in FMS as a reference point for Express Way Visual 31 into LGA which was the active runway and approach in use. The pilot flying was the First Officer (FO) and since he was not quite familiar with all the local landmarks so that he was still using autopilot with FMS with those 2 waypoints built in on FMS even after we passed DIALS.We configured the aircraft for landing at DIALS and I did not see any problem for altitude and speed control since then. But because we had over 20 knots northerly wind and aircraft did not line up with the runway 31 and were almost approaching taxiway B so we decided to go around. For the second try; we built DIALS on FMS but decided to hand fly with those 2 waypoints just as a reference. This time; the pilot flying; FO; totally lost his orientation where the Long Island Express way is and way off course to the east and since we were still descending; we had the low altitude warning from New York Approach Control. At that time; I took the flight control and climbed back up to 1;500 feet. I kept the flight control with me and landed normal in runway 31.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew experienced a low altitude warning while on second visual approach into LGA. Crew adjusted altitude and continued to a normal landing.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Drinkable/Waste Water Syst
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Blue lavatories 4LR blue fluid alone with dirty toilet tissue flowing into the galley. Started happen on the climb.  Liquid gushing from the toilets which were unusable because bio hazard chemical spread near the food contaminated layer all the bathrooms were unusable.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported Bio Hazardous leak from lavatory 4LR into aft galley.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a bio-break with the Captain out in the Lavatory. While at cruise at 35;000 ATC called and requested that we slow to Mach .76. At that same time; we encountered moderate turbulence. While reading back the Mach .76 call; I requested lower to smooth air. ATC then said that it was smooth at 31;000 but to descend to 33;000 for now. I started descending to 33;000 via level change. When descending through 33;500 ATC then asked if we were on frequency. I replied that we were and he had literally just slowed us and cleared us to descend to 33;000. At that point; the controller said to maintain 35;000 and turn right 20 degrees. I started a climb back to 35;000 and a turn. Realizing the situation and that the automation was not moving fast enough; I clicked off the autopilot and auto thrust and turned and climbed back to 35;000. Once level; ATC seemed confused about the clearance but fortunately we had an additional pilot in the jump seat and we all clearly heard the clearance and call sign. I told ATC that fact and he was extremely apologetic realizing what had happened. During the event; both the jump seater and I noticed on the TCAS that we were within 100 feet of the other aircrafts altitude! At that point; we did not have the other aircraft in sight but shortly after; a [aircraft] went under our nose and left wing. Once clear of traffic; ATC then cleared us lower again and handed us off to the next controller. He again apologized and thanked us for our help. The end result is that we did not get a TCAS RA; but it was a close encounter. I believe had I left the automation on; it would have resulted in a RA or even worse! I also believe that [the other aircraft] did not get an RA either based on the fact that nothing was said about it on ATC.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a clearance from ATC that created an airborne conflict. ATC identified the error and issued a new instruction to deconflict.
Date: 201302
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Interphone System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: We boarded the aircraft and were informed the aft interphone was inoperative and deferred. The three flight attendants discussed this and I told the Captain I was not comfortable with a deferred interphone. He immediately said 'No problem. I'll call Maintenance.' He did and it was fixed. Although I realize an inoperative interphone is a high priority Maintenance issue I question the safety of it ever being deferrable. There are many different scenarios but lets take for instance a situation where people rush the cockpit and take out the flight crew. We see this from the aft of the aircraft but without an interphone are unable to communicate the situation to the cockpit. Yes; we can use the Evac Alarm telling the cockpit 'something' is very wrong and they will immediately land the aircraft. However the loud Evac alarm could be potentially harmful as it alerts everyone and could make the situation even worse. A quick discreet interphone call could be needed. On the particular day my interphone was deferred it was incredibly windy. If we had needed to grab the megaphone since the PA was inoperative just getting to it would have been dangerous with potential injuries. These types of scenarios are endless. We have learned a lot from 9/11. We must always be prepared and ready for anything. We have learned to expect the unexpected. I would ask the FAA to reconsider allowing any interphone on any narrow body aircraft to be deferred for any amount of time. We need to have all our tools available to meet the unexpected and the interphone is one of those vital tools for flight attendants. Thank you for the consideration. I hope this is the correct venue for this type of review as my supervisor suggested it.




Synopsis: An A319 aft flight attendant interphone was MEL'ed inoperative but for security reasons the flight attendant crew asked that it be repaired. The Captain made the request and Maintenance complied.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: CTAF HAF
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on top of scattered clouds at 5;500 ft. arriving at HAF from the south. Weather reports from the airport all indicated the airport was VFR. As I approached the IF for the approach I had to decide between coordinating a pop up approach with Approach Control or descending through a large opening in the cloud layer and flying up the beach. I chose to remain VFR and fly up the coast due to the fact that it was getting dark and I had no idea how long it would take Approach Control to coordinate an approach. I descended uneventfully below the clouds and proceeded to the airport at between 1;000 and 1;500 ft. over hills that vary from 100 ft. to 300 ft. high. Apparently there is some drone operator who operates off a hill that gets upset when aircraft fly over at low altitude. He called me right after I had landed. He told me he 'I can not enforce this but I am requesting that we not fly over his drone operation'. I never saw a drone and am not sure if he was operating one at the time. Talking to other pilots it appears he calls every pilot he sees fly over at 1;500 ft. or below. I typically fly higher but on days when the ceilings are 1;500 to 2;000 ft. it is unavoidable to fly low. I am concerned about the drone operator calling pilots and possibly influencing their decisions when sacrificing safety of flight of the aircraft vs. inconvenience of the drone operator.




Synopsis: A pilot reported a concerned citizen called them after landing to request that they do not fly over the citizens' 'drone operation'. The reporter stated other pilots who fly into this airport have also received phone calls from the same person.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EGLL.TRACON, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON EGLL
Second aircraft: B777-200
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored for 27L at EGLL we experienced wake turbulence events. Two of them were unable to be corrected for by the autopilot and had to be manually corrected. The second one exceeded 30 degrees in bank. Both of these events were a hard roll. I asked ATC what kind of aircraft we were following and they told us it was a 777-200. They then allowed us to slow to 150kts to increase the separation between us. We were advised that we had .2 miles from the minimum recommend separation at the time. There was zero wind at 4000 ft and the surface winds were calm.




Synopsis: B767 FO reported encountering wake turbulence on arrival into EGLL in trail of a B777-200.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [During approach] the slats failed to deploy on first attempt. Slats did deploy after QRH checklist procedure was competed. A normal flaps five landing was accomplished. The aircraft was returned to service: 'message cleared. No defects noted. A/C found to be in transitory condition.' On [the next] flight the Slats again failed to deploy on first attempt; but the slats deployed subsequent to QRH checklist procedure. Maintenance found possible electrical faults in SF-ACE one and/or the slat/flap deployment lever. FDR's were pulled in accordance with NTSB reportable event requirements.




Synopsis: EMB175 Captain reports failure of slats to extend when selected during approach. After QRH procedure (return flap lever to previous position) the flaps and slats extend normally. Maintenance can find no faults. The anomaly repeats on the next leg with the same outcome. This time Maintenance detected possible faults in the Flap/slat computer or the flap lever.