elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were climbing through some weather (rain) and the Captain asked me to call the flight attendants after I preformed the climb checklist to inform them to remain seated. The flight attendants acknowledged and said a passenger was ringing the call button over and over; they stayed seated but asked us to make a PA. After making the PA; the flight attendants called us a few minutes later to inform us the frantic passenger had gate checked a bag containing a Lithium Ion battery built into a portable breast pump. We informed Dispatch and continued operations. Just in case we reviewed the QRH for a cargo fire and also reviewed diversion airports and weather there along our route if needed. We landed without incident.Gate agents should remind pax about the dangers of such things when gate checking a bag.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported a passenger informed the Flight Attendant that she had gate checked a bag containing a Lithium-Ion battery.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TPA.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E TPA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Working satellite and departure combined in the midst of busy season; middle of the day; good VFR weather.  At the time of the event I had 19 airplanes; which is quite busy for this sector and typically would permit a handoff; which I did not have until I asked for one; after it was too late.  Aircraft X departed VNC requesting northbound along the coast.  I assigned AOB 3000 VFR.  Aircraft Y departed SRQ VFR.  I issued climb to 5500; but then amended to 3000 for traffic at 4000 IFR; and additional traffic at 3500 VFR.  I then assigned 3000 to Aircraft X for traffic at 2000 opposite direction.  In the area where the event occurred; there were 5 data blocks overlying each other.  I became distracted with other traffic and missed the CA [Conflict Alert] until after it had happened; at which point Aircraft Y informed me an aircraft just passed by what he assumed to be 500 feet laterally at the same altitude. I don't have a recommendation because during the busy season handoff is often staffed on this sector; but this time the supervisor just didn't realize how busy I'd become.




Synopsis: TPA Controller describes a loss of separation due to data tag overlap and amount of traffic during the session.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Other VFR Traffic Pattern
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: C172 called over Vancouver Lake inbound to VUO on the VUO CTAF. I issued traffic on a heavy inbound for PDX. I found out today that a helicopter was northbound head-on with C172. I don't recall seeing the target. On the replay it looked liked they both turned to avoid each other. I believe fatigue was an issue as well. I should have seen and called traffic. Even though neither was RADAR identified; I can guess where C172 might be and at least give him something to look for. If there is traffic on my scope; I should see it and take appropriate action; whether I'm specifically required to or not. Having said that; it was two VFR aircraft; neither RADAR identified; outside Class C and Class D airspace. I had no communication with one aircraft; and the other was transiting to an uncontrolled airport (VUO) on a Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF). The Pearson Advisory position was created to issue PDX traffic overflying VUO on the VUO CTAF. ATC should not be on a CTAF at an uncontrolled airport. It confuses many of the pilots. A CTAF is for pilots to talk to each other and separate themselves. When a pilot hears ATC on frequency; doesn't he expect us to provide more service than we are giving? Pilots frequently withhold their pattern calls because ATC is on frequency. They probably think we are controlling the pattern. The current VUO procedures are a joke. The Pearson Advisory position is a joke. Pearson Advisory is not a RADAR position; nor a tower position. I guess it's more of a flight service position? Whatever it is; it's half-baked and dangerous. Due to proximity to PDX; there needs be a tower at VUO; with RADAR capabilities; staffed by PDX controllers.




Synopsis: PDX Controller described a VFR conflict event between two unidentified targets; noting the current procedures covering transiting aircraft are in need of revision.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Crossfeed
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In an effort to use all the center tank fuel; I turned on one pump and opened the crossfire valve. I subsequently failed to close the valve. The differential main pump pressure caused a 3;000 pound imbalance between the main tanks. The First Officer (Pilot Flying) noticed the imbalance on final approach. We landed with the imbalance. I notified Maintenance of the discrepancy and; after consultation with Maintenance Control and the inspection procedures; the decision was made to remove the aircraft from service.




Synopsis: A 737 flight crew inadvertently left a fuel cross feed valve open. This resulted in a significant fuel imbalance; which was discovered during final approach. The crew elected to land with the imbalance; resulting in a post flight inspection and maintenance action.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: UAO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I was] returning to TTD en route at 2;500 MSL 4 NM north of UAO. [I] started a descent to avoid Class C PDX airspace when a plane called that said they were 5 miles east of UAO. While passing through 2;250 MSL in a descent spotted an aircraft at our 11 o'clock turning to the left. I took the controls and immediately started a climb avoiding the aircraft by a few hundred feet at most. I suspect the aircraft that I avoided was the same aircraft that reported to the east of UAO. If [that] was the aircraft that reported to the east he was not in the vicinity of where he believed he was and his position call was pointless since he had no idea where he was. Giving no help to other aircraft that were in that area also in the proper maneuver to avoid another airplane head on he failed to execute the proper technique since he was turning left and not to the right.


Second narrative: Returning to base at 2;500 MSL 4 NM north of UAO. Started a descent to avoid class C PDX airspace when a plane called that said they where 5 miles east of UAO. While passing through 2;250 MSL in a descent spotted an aircraft at our 11 o'clock turning to the left. My instructor took the controls and immediately started a climb avoiding the aircraft by a few hundred feet at most. I suspect the aircraft that my instructor avoided was the same aircraft that reported to the east of UAO; a Cessna 172. If this was the aircraft that reported to the east he was not in the vicinity of where he believed he was and his position call was pointless since he had no idea where he was. Giving no help to other aircraft that were in that area. Also the proper maneuver to avoid another airplane in a head on situation is to turn right which the other aircraft did not do and instead turned left.


Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot and trainee reported NMAC with another small aircraft in the vicinity of UAO. Reporter stated the other aircraft did not follow proper procedures.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: S-76/S-76 Mark II
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A company owned Sikorsky S76B helicopter was brought into the maintenance hangar on to begin a 100 hr / calendar inspection. The aircraft was opened and the inspection was started. Later that day; management informed the Director of Maintenance (DOM) the aircraft was needed for a charter the next morning. The inspection was stopped and the aircraft was placed back in service. It was used on the flightline [after inspection]. It was returned to the hangar to continue the inspection. [After]; it was found that some areas of skin joints had 'BONDO' applied to provide a smooth surface for the previous paint application. As the 'BONDO' was removed; there was evidence of severe skin corrosion to the point where a lap joint had separated and rivets had popped. Again management informed the DOM that the aircraft was needed for a charter over the weekend. The DOM directed a non-licensed technician to repaint the corroded areas with 'RUSTOLEUM' spray paint to cover the damage. The aircraft was returned to service without a complete inspection performed and with out of limit skin damage. The return to service of an aircraft with obvious skin damage does not follow the repair station procedures as outlined in the quality control manual. It also was not in accordance with the S76 series Sikorsky structural repair manual limits and repair procedures. There was no repair attempted and no reference to AC43.13-1B CH 4 and 6 inspection and repair guidelines was entered into the aircraft records. The flight crews continue to fly the aircraft with the visibly obvious skin lap joint damaged.




Synopsis: It was reported that a Sikorsky S76B Helicopter had evidence of severe skin corrosion where a lap joint had separated and rivets popped. This area was covered with 'Bondo'; painted and the aircraft was put back into service.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Received taxi clearance; 'Runway 9; Taxi via B; E; hold short 4L.' Switched to Tower frequency while taxiing on B approaching E. First Officer advised Tower that we were waiting on weights. Taxi clearance changed to; 'B; M; cleared to cross 4L approach; will bring you in the other side.' Received weights; but they disagreed with reconciliation card from the Gate Agent. First Officer sent message of passenger count from card. While waiting on response; and as I was taxiing; I was instructed by Tower to expedite through the 4L approach as traffic was on 3 mile final. Rounding the bend on B; we had the traffic in sight. The east side of B had little room to clear the 4L approach area and signage was poor. I saw the M sign for the right turn; but missed the M sign for the left turn toward Runway 9 as it was greater than 90 degrees behind to the left and I was splitting my attention with the traffic on final. I started a right turn on M instead of a left turn and was instructed by Tower to hold short of Runway 14; but there are no pavement hold short lines for the runway or on the taxi chart. Tower then told us to continue taxi on Runway 14 to hold short of Runway 4R for a 4R departure. The runway signage was not visible until the turn was started on M towards Runway 14.There was a possible runway encroachment to a runway not in use. Contributing factors: 1. Reconciliation of weights with new procedure. 2. Change in taxi instructions with busy Tower frequency due to late weights. 3. Complex taxi instructions with expedite due to traffic (Tower was busy; but would have been better with clearance to say B; left on M to Runway 9).4. Signage at the taxi B and M intersection location with no pavement markings for Runway 14.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reports being confused after being issued taxi instructions to taxi via B and M to hold short of Runway 4L and expedite through the 4L approach. A right turn is initiated at M resulting in a possible runway incursion. Poor signage is cited as a factor.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: First Officer flying through FL200 on way to FL270; in IFR conditions. First Officer and Captain's airspeed indicators [were] unreliable. Standby airspeed indicator correct. Captain's airspeed indicator came back; but First Officer's out for 5 minutes and EEC (Electronic Engine Control) Systems went to Standby. QRC and QRH procedures accomplished as well as followup procedures. Anti-icing systems working; Engine and wing heat on. Stayed as much out of weather; ZZZ closed; ZZZ1 still in VFR weather and location of heavy maintenance for the B-737. Briefed flight attendants and passengers. Captain flew to ZZZ1; safety vehicles checked out aircraft.Good crew coordination of verification of the unreliable airspeed indicators.Don't fly into clouds with icing conditions. May have been multiple problems that happened at the same time. EEC Systems went to standby while in heavy thick clouds; on climb out; through the freezing level.




Synopsis: Captain reported diverting after airspeed indications became unreliable in IMC conditions and the destination airport closed.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching [our destination] ATC advised us to expect a visual approach to runway XX. Upon checking the runway length it was determine to be too short for landing. We ask for RWY YY. ATC replied unable there is a disabled aircraft on runway YY. Flight crew advised the passengers and decided to go to our alternate TEB. ATC instructed us to turn right heading 040 and descend to 2000 ft. We read back clearance and advised ATC of our intentions to divert. Sometime later a new controller comes on the frequency and advises us to return to 3000 feet while we were descending through 2500 ft. We advised him that we were cleared to 2000 ft and he said that 3000 ft was their minimum vectoring altitude in our sector. Turned the autopilot off and began a climb back to 3000 ft.Approach radar caught us descending below 3000 feet.Too many things going on with [our intended destination] runway closure; attempting to get aircraft to fly the quiet visual approach to 19 at Teterboro. Multiple pilots/aircraft not accepting the quiet visual approach overloading ATC. ATC then changed the approach to the ILS 19. Approach control had many unusual events happening on a busy Sunday afternoon. The runway closure at [our intended destination]; pilots not accepting the Quiet Visual Approach to RWY 19 at Teterboro; plus the volume of traffic.


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


Synopsis: A Fractional Flight Crew reported descending below 3;000 ft; the floor of the Class B airspace; while on approach to TEB.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MLY.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On or about eight months ago a new runway was opened up for service at MLY; Manley Hot Springs. NOTAM's were issued that have very limited information. In eight months the FAA has been late in updating the ALASKA SUPPLEMENT handbook used for pre flight. It still has the old runway in it which has been closed for eight months. This Alaska Supplement is very important to prefight for that runway. FAA cannot ask every pilot to review any and all info prior to flight on one hand while on the other hand not update the available information FAA puts out for 9 months.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reports that MLY has new Runway 18/36 and the old Runway 02/20 is closed; but the Alaska Supplement and AFD have yet to be updated by the FAA.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E Y
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for a visual approach to ZZZ; a satellite airport in the Bozeman sector. He was level at 13000 [ft]. My airspace boundary map and my MVA map were set at the same intensity so I mistakenly thought he was in a 12000 MVA so I assigned 12000. 30 seconds later I realized that he was still in a 13000 MVA so I reassigned 13000 but he had already started a descent. Instead of climbing back to 13000 (he was about 12500) he called the airport in sight and I cleared him for a visual approach. I am going to change the intensity settings on my MVA map and my airspace boundary map so that the lines don't look the same and it will be clearer what the MVA is.




Synopsis: BOI controller reported a BE20 was descended into a higher MVA.