elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EIDW.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center EISN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I began my day at XA00 local as a short call reserve. At approximately XB00 Crew Scheduling called and assigned a XE00 departure from ZZZ to EIDW. About 4 hours into the flight; or about XI00 body-clock time; I felt extremely fatigued and struggled to remain awake for the next 3 hours of the flight. The First Officer admitted to also feeling very fatigued. On arrival into EIDW I missed several radio calls and was generally not alert. This flight is unaugmented and departs every night from ZZZ at XE00. This flight and the ZZZ - ZZZ1 flight; also unaugmented and departing at XE30; are routinely in open time because no one wants to fly them because of the fatigue factors involved. They are therefore almost always flown by reserves; many of whom are called out; as I was; from short call status. I think this practice of flying late night flights that impinges on the WOCL (Window of Circadian Low); unaugmented; in an international theater is unsafe and should not be allowed for safety reasons.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported experiencing extreme fatigue and missed radio calls during a late night into early morning flight.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Challenger 300
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A B717 was in front assigned 290+ by previous sector. A Challenger was in trail assigned 290-. I climbed the Challenger to 330 and handed off to Ultra High [Sector]. Ultra High climbed the Challenger and gave aircraft normal speed out of 340. I gave the B717 normal speed and climbed him to 330. At the time the Challenger was above the B717 and climbing. I based my decision on aircraft performance. I thought a B717 normal speed would be 290 or greater and with the Challenger's reduced speed; he would climb faster than the B717. I haven't listened to the tapes yet to see if Challenger checked on 290 or less and I don't know what the B717 'normal' speed was for the day. I was not feeling well that day and decided that I should go vertical with everyone. The Controller at the sector next to me offered his D-Side 3 times and I declined each time. I did not think the B717 would out climb the Challenger and I didn't think the Challenger would catch the B717. I didn't ensure anything. In fact; I took away the insurance that was there. I have no idea why. I am not ever bothered to have help. I have no macho issues. I was aware of my limitations that day and still declined help. I will be totally honest here; I was going to call in sick that day because I had a sore throat and didn't feel sharp. I went to work because it was a holiday; holiday pay. I am so disappointed in myself. I am having issues with medical insurance and as a result I received numerous medical bills that very morning and decided I needed the holiday pay; which I really don't. I am a very safe controller; I couldn't not go to work today; our area has had so many errors recently. I am totally at fault but I still would like to know what the 'normal' indicated was for the B717 yesterday. Also; I want to know if the data block from the Challenger had dropped off my scope. I still feel like I let my area and supervisor down. I am disappointed in my judgment. Use sick leave as appropriate [and] never declined help.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event listing a number of contributing human factors.
Date: 202010
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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I am requesting the company ban 'single layer neck gators.' I do not want them used aboard my aircraft because the ones that I have seen; that are single layer are so thin you can see through them and I do not believe they are effective at protecting anyone.  I believe they are unsafe for surrounding crew and passengers.I had taken the time to ask questions; of a couple of passengers; regarding the 'neck gators' they were wearing. They were single layer. I did tell them I was not comfortable with the 'neck gators' since they were only single layer and a Gate Agent provided the masks we have; for their flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported requesting the company ban single layer neck gators as they do not provide adequate protection.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While level at 6;000 Approach issued a descent to 5;000 FT. 5;000 was entered into the altitude selector and verified by both pilots; vertical speed -1;000 was selected. While discussing the arrival...; ATC asked us to state our altitude and why we were climbing. When we looked at the altitude we were at 6;500 FT. I immediately got the airplane down to the new assigned altitude of 5;000 FT. The main threat for this approach was that they were using the...visual to [Runway] 29; which neither the pilot not flying or pilot flying had done in several months; so while discussing the arrival we got off on altitude. We were also in between scattered layers of clouds and continuous light to moderate chop.It would have been wise to actually ensure that the aircraft was descending to the selected altitude before returning to the arrival briefing. Even though the instrumentation showed 5;000 set and vertical speed -1;000 selected we should have actually ensured that the aircraft was in the descent.


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


Synopsis: Given a clearance to descend; EMB-145 flight crew entered the descent altitude and set 1;000 FPM descent rate in FMS. As the crew briefed the approach; ATC alerted them to the fact that the aircraft was climbing.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Line selected Bridge Visual to R 29-v and added points GRITY; DOOIN; LAWNE. Altitude constraints of 2;800 [FT] at GRITY; 1;700 [FT] at DOOIN; and 500 [FT] at CHUMR. As depicted on App Plate. Briefed arrival; approach and miss/reject well before descent. Completed checklists and arrival went smoothly. ATC gave us direct and descend to GRITY at 2;800 [FT] and then slow to 180 KTS. After GRITY cleared to descend to 1;700 [FT] and maintain 180 to DOOIN and cleared the Bridge Visual Runway 29. Crossed DOOIN with autopilot off. After DOOIN we began to slow further to managed speed (REF); gear down and landing flaps configured. Followed vertical guidance from FMC to cross CHUMR at 500 FT. FMC vertical guidance seemed to be taking us lower than necessary so used shallow descent and eventually leveled at 1;000 FT MSL. This was right around LAWNE. NOTE: Airport and runways in sight the entire time. Approximately 20 KT headwind while on northbound course. At about the same position as LAWNE; ATC advised receiving a LOW ALT Alert and to check altitude. We acknowledged and maintained level flight until after turning toward CHUMR. At which point we continued descent to a normal landing. Lateral profile was maintained throughout the procedure but vertical straight from 1;700 [FT] at DOOIN to 500 FT at CHUMR takes aircraft too low over LAWNE.


Second narrative: After LAWNE; Tower directed us to begin a left turn direct to the runway (dogleg final); thereby turning inside the next checkpoint Bayonne Golf Course. We crossed CHUMR at 500 FT and continued for a safe landing. After engine shutdown and parking checklist complete; we reviewed the approach page and realized we were not supposed to begin our descent from 1;700 FT to 500 FT until the Bayonne Golf Course.


Synopsis: A flight crew on the EWR Bridge Visual to Runway 29 descended to 500 FT after LAWNE and ATC advised them about a low altitude alert. After landing the crew realized the descent from 1;700 FT should have begun after Bayonne Golf Course.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; just as I went back for my rest break; I was called back to the cockpit. The Captain and First Officer were running the checklist for Engine Oil Pressure. Oil pressure on the left engine indicated zero accompanied with an amber 5.0 vibration. We were directed to and completed the Engine Failure or Shutdown and secured the left engine. The First Officer completed an uneventful single engine landing and came to a stop on the runway. Landing weight was 196;200 lbs. ARFF equipment inspected the aircraft and followed us to the gate.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: Three cockpit crewmembers and a Flight Attendant describe the events leading up to an in flight shut down due to no oil pressure and high vibration. Flight returns successfully to the departure airport.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
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: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After listening to the recording; it appears that this aircraft had a faulty Mode C.  His altitude showed he was level at FL320 in the previous sector; then his Mode C showed him at FL375 and someone changed his data block to a hard altitude of FL380.  I never saw any of this.  When I took the handoff; I observed him at FL376; I assumed he was climbing to FL380.  When the aircraft checked on to my frequency; I missed the initial call that he was level at FL320.  I flashed the aircraft to the sector 71 (ALO); the data block autos flashed to 76 (ARL).  However; I technically violated the 75 (COTON) sector since the aircraft was at FL320.  We didn't have any other aircraft in the vicinity; so luckily we didn't have a situation; nevertheless; this is a major concern. Active listening and not assuming you hear what the data block says.




Synopsis: ZAU describes situation where he did not hear the initial call up with altitude and assumed the aircraft was doing what he thought it should be doing; when it wasn't.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Ramp
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The ground crew is always under so much pressure to get flights out on time; they do not follow proper procedures. Aside from maintenance not finishing the MEL items; the ground crew filled out the load sheet incorrectly. They could have questioned us about the placards. If the load sheet was filled out accurately we would have caught and corrected the error at the gate and wouldn't have taken off with a miscalculated CG. They repeatedly call us while we're doing briefings and checklists instead of saying 'ground crew standing by' once. It happens on every single fight and it is a distraction. This morning they even initiated a push-back at full speed without a clearance from the captain and before we called ramp control. We all strive to be on time; but safety really should be the priority on the ramp; too. Proper training and emphasis on safety would reduce these errors.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported that Ground Personnel are not adhering to SOPs and are creating ground and airborne hazards.
Date: 201908
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
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On ground in ZZZ; after APU was started; there was a slight odor of oil in the flight deck. Smell dissipated and then we noticed it again upon landing in ZZZ1 once APU was started. Flight Attendant notified us once we reached the gate that he also smelled an odor on landing. [I suggest] better maintenance of APU; oil filters; etc.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported an 'oil' odor during preflight which dissipated and returned on landing.
Date: 202107
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: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While coming off A PREVIOUS flight I had flight ABC with 68 mins to load after I printed out the card. While working ABC the crew had 3 leads total. While loading the front another lead said I'm going to take care of the manual pit 51. I responded OK he continued to load the back. After completion of loading the cans; I tried closing the flight it wouldn't close so I went to the loading program. While at loading program; I still can't close the flight. I call load planner and we determine there isn't enough weight in pit 51 as I'm on the phone I noticed the plane went by and I called zone to let them know I need them to return to gate to add more weight. Apparently; they were calling me for weights on zone 1 but I was on channel X till the flight is closed out. I never authorized the plane to leave the gate. Also; when verifying the Hazmat; the scanner never showed pit 51 it showed the Hazmat in the forward cargo holds.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported an aircraft departed the with erroneous Hazmat cargo location; as well as incorrect weight and balance data.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RVS.Tower, OK
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D RVS
ATC / advisory: Tower RVS
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tower was call for release in North Flow.  Aircraft Y departed VFR northbound.  Tower got release with heading 270 for Aircraft X.  After Aircraft X rolled; Tulsa TRACON called on shout line and FLM (Front Line Manager) answered that line.  TRACON APPREQD Aircraft Y return for landing.  No special handling was requested; just a turn back to downwind.  About a minute later; the LC controller saw Aircraft Y southbound northwest of the airport and asked what Aircraft Y was doing.  The FLM told him he had approved it.  The LC controller asked about the departure on a 270 heading.  The FLM told him to turn the departure to 300 heading; contrary to release given.  The controller issued the 300 heading and then switched the Aircraft X to departure.  Aircraft X reported traffic in sight but did not acknowledge the frequency change.  After traffic was no factor; the FLM told the controller to turn departure to 270 heading.  The controller replied he had already switched.  The FLM then APPREQD a 300 heading.  TRACON called and asked to try Aircraft X again and they were switched to departure.  The FLM said he thought the returning aircraft had some sort of problem. This all happened during all hands meeting concerning conflicts with management over leave policy.  All CPCs (Certified Professional Controller) except the one on LC were in meeting and the Staff Specialist was on Ground.  FLM was CIC.If the controller is too busy to answer the line; FLM should not approve actions out of the ordinary.  If FLM does not have the whole traffic picture; do not approve things out of the ordinary.  If the FLM is going to do things to disrupt a controller's plan; tell them a new plan ' Change Aircraft X to a 300 heading; but don't switch him until he passes Aircraft Y who I approved back inbound.'   A request to return for landing is not automatically an emergency to be approved without question.




Synopsis: RVS Tower controller reports of an aircraft that just departed having to return to the airport. The Front Line Manager answers the phone line and coordinates with departure control and coordinates things that aren't common. The controller then gets confused as what to do with his next departure and the returning aircraft.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ROA.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on RNAV 24 approach issued direct HIBAN and cleared for the approach. With terrain displayed on MFD (Multi-function Flight Display) 1; PF (Pilot Flying) began to descend to 3;700 feet for HIBAN. At 3;900 feet and .8 NM from HIBAN terrain warning was received. (V/S (Vertical Speed) was less than 1;000 feet per minute). PF disconnected auto pilot and climbed to 4;200 feet until aural warning stopped (VMC). Once aircraft safety and stability was ensured approach was continued.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving a terrain warning during approach to ROA.