elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Crew notified Dispatch that they had contacted Tower for evidence of blown tire. Flight Attendant heard and felt light bump aircraft right. Aircraft systems 1 normal. No cargo shift; no bird strike. Possible tail strike per crew. ZZZ responded after inspection with no evidence of blown tire. Crew reported again [that] he suspected a tail strike. I pulled position report; crew was at FL360. [He] said he would like to return to ZZZ unless we felt comfortable continuing. I called [Maintenance Control] and [Chief Pilot]. They both say he was not sure of tail strike; continue for now and we will do conference call. Took approximately 30 minutes to connect with ARINC. I then connected [Chief Pilot] and [Maintenance Control] into conference call. Captain says aircraft pitch was at 11.1/11.2 and tail strike pitch was 11.0. Captain said that he erroneously enter numbers 30;000 pounds off at departure and reconfirmed Flight Attendant felt and heard light bump. [Chief Pilot] put us on hold to speak with Fleet Manager. I pulled tail strike in QRH; which says not to pressurize the aircraft; Flight Attendant confirms bump and to land at nearest suitable. All others on phone said they felt safe to continue to ZZZ1 as pressurization was normal and they were not sure it was a tail strike. Conference call dropped so Dispatch sent ACARS expressing my opinion that I disagreed and we needed to land at nearest suitable which by this time was ZZZ2. Captain said he agreed with Fleet [Manager] and was continuing to ZZZ1 to burn fuel and reduce weight. I said 'Copy you will be using your emergency authority'. Captain said he was diverting to ZZZ2. I received position report; entered into SABRE and ran flight plan to new station ZZZ. I advised Captain release in system and advised showed to be 1000 pounds above structural landing weight. Advised [Maintenance Control] of possible overweight arrival. Structural was 146.3 planned showed to be 147426 on landing weight. Actual landing weight was 145176. Tail strike was confirmed in ZZZ.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that flight crew reported possible tail strike on takeoff; resulting in confusion between maintenance and flight crew resulted in a diversion and precautionary landing.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out of 14;000 ft. we heard a loud bang. While investigating what it was there was a second bang and this time I saw glass shards coming off window 3L and saw the windows inner pane had completely shattered.  We leveled off at 16;000 ft. assessed the situation and decided to turn to ZZZ. Dispatch was notified and with no pressurization; controllability; or overweight landing issues no emergency was declared. Approach and landing were uneventful.




Synopsis: Captain reported cockpit window 3L shattered during climb and elected to perform an air turn back to a safe precautionary landing.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working combined sectors during a slow period. Not much was happening; when [another] Sector Controller asked me if I knew anything about the Mode C intruder; labeled Aircraft X. I didn't; and noticed that it was at 35;000 ft. heading northwest bound. There was no flight plan information on this aircraft; so I called the [adjacent Center Sector] and asked them about it. They were unsure of what had happened; and since entering remove strip messages of the wrong aircraft has been common recently; I assumed that is what had happened.There is a good possibility that I saw the target and the data block; but did not register that the flight plan had been removed. This is a common corner of the Sector to 'flash through' aircraft that just clip the corner. If there would have been traffic at 35;000 ft. I'm rather certain I would have seen this target. We also have frequent 'bad radar hits' in the sector where this event took place. It's common to see Mode C Intruders in the flight levels for a few hits before they disappear.I'm only a novice computer programmer; but it seems extremely simple to include in the code of the next ERAM (En Route Automation Modernization) update an 'IF statement' that does not allow a target to be removed if the MODE C or Assigned Altitude is above 18;000 ft. Humans make mistakes. This appears to be a systemic issue that could easily be solved with a few lines of code.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported that an aircraft that did not display a radar data block flew through a corner of the airspace without coordination.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The pilot flying has already reported this incident. This is just a backup and second opinion. On our cruise flight the engine stopped running. We declared emergency and glided to the next field. Before landing the engine started again. We supposed the engine had stopped running because of the outside air temperature below -30C. We had the mechanic look at the engine. He could not find any problems and joined us for a run up. He suggested flying some traffic patterns. We did this. We also asked Malibu experts and they confirmed that this problem happens from time to time if you are flying below -30C. The next day we added Isopropyl alcohol and could continue our flight without event even at lower temperatures than -35C.




Synopsis: The pilot/passenger not flying reports engine failure at cruise altitude. An emergency was declared.  During the descent the engine restarted and a successful landing was accomplished.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PMDY.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Dispatch and flight crew failed to notice that PMDY was no longer a suitable ETOPS alternate based on the information provided.




Synopsis: Air carrier crew flew an oceanic flight with PMDY as an ETOPS alternate; but it was not legal because of inadequate weather information.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was planned and filed on route X in our database. Approximately 10 minutes before the crew was ready to depart they called for lower fuel release due to fuel onboard. I ran the data and was going to update the release with the internal release and it bounced back at me saying invalid route; route blocked. The only way to make it work was to ignore the check blocks. I called Center and had them remove the filing. I had the flight crew call me and then proceeded to refile a new route with ATC and advised the crew of the new fuel burn numbers and the corrected route.This situation happens because blocking data for warning areas goes active after we have filed with ATC. There are no alerts that come back to the dispatcher to advise we are filed on a route that now has an active block. The only way we become aware of the situation is to run a new informational flight plan and get a rejection. The dispatch flight planning program should capture a route that has been filed and the time it is expected to be flown. This includes any delays or changes to the departure time that now affects and active flight. The flight planning system should generate and alert to the dispatcher handling the flight. Whether preflight or enroute the dispatcher could than contact the flight to advise of the situation. If the flight is enroute the dispatcher could then coordinate with the ATC coordinator to get and answer on how ATC wants to reroute the flight around the active area and in turn relay this information to the flight crew. Everyone would then be aware of the problem so that if there was radio failure the dispatcher; ATC; and the flight crew would all be working on the same conclusion rather than a flight possibly proceeding thru a warning area that has gone hot.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported that their flight planning program can have routes filed blocked as warning areas become active. There is no indication to dispatchers of warning areas going active in regards to conflicts with flights that have already been filed through that airspace before the activation.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout from LAS on the COWBY5 I coupled Auto Pilot at 1200 FT AGL and on the way from FIXIX to ROPPR we were given direct CEASR and resume SID; about 5 miles prior to CEASR the line being drawn on the NAV display seemed like it was going to turn early but with about a 120 degree left turn I thought it could be acceptable.  It started to turn at 3 miles prior and almost immediately ATC questioned where we were going.  I disconnected NAV and went to heading mode and turned back toward CEASR. This happened to me 4 months ago (Report filed) and as in this case we did not receive any indication from the FMS of being off course; which leads me to believe that the flight director believed it was on course.  In my opinion this aircraft should not be used on RNAV departures without an overhaul to the software.




Synopsis: A300 Captain departing LAS is given a shortcut to CEASR on the COWBY5 which required a 120 degree heading change over CEASR. The FMGC leads this turn by three miles causing ATC to question the crew as to where they are going.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was notified this morning of undeclared dangerous goods being transported aboard flight from ZZZZ. A fuel pump was removed from the aircraft in ZZZZ and then put in the [aircraft] for transport back to the US.




Synopsis: Technician reported undeclared Dangerous Goods were transported on passenger flight.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 8A1.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G 8A1
ATC / advisory: CTAF 8A1
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a left downwind for Runway 25 a formation flight of two vintage war planes performed a low approach for Runway 25. While the other two airplanes were on about a one mile final I reported them in sight and said I would land after behind them on the low approach. I turned to left base as they flew over the runway. As I turned to about a one and one-half mile final; both planes made a climbing left turn around to what I thought was a left downwind. Instead one plane kept turning around to enter a short final in front of me. I assume that this airplane did not realize I was already on final; even though I had made radio calls for each leg of the pattern.Meanwhile the second airplane; which was going to follow; must have seen me and entered a left base instead of turning to final. He was at my altitude on a collision course; probably 2;000 feet to my left. While I was trying to figure out what the airplanes were doing; the second airplane (on left base) radioed and asked if I was landing and if he was going to have to go around. Before I could respond; the first airplane; already on the ground at this point; radioed and said; quote; 'No! Wingman; you do not go around. You land.' At this time; I came on the radio and said I was going around. The second airplane turned to final and descended while I climbed out on final. I flew a normal pattern; came around; and performed a normal touch-and-go landing without incident.All-in-all; this was a miscommunication on both sides. I did not realize that after they performed a low approach that they would immediately climb out to the left and enter a very short final. At the same time; they misunderstood me when I said I would land after they did the low approach. They must have thought I meant that would land after they landed.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reported an airborne conflict with two vintage military aircraft that performed a low approach and break maneuver to a landing without clear coordination with other traffic at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Tower, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ferry Permit required aircraft to be flown with flaps 20 at 15000 ft or below. After takeoff; Captain instinctively and without call began to retract flaps to 8. I signaled him to stop but they were already being retracted. Once at the 8 position I suggested they remain at 8 degrees since they were not supposed to be moved at all. Captain wanted to be in compliance with the Ferry Permit which required flaps to be at the 20 position so he extended the flaps back to 20. Moments later we received a Flaps Fail caution message. The rest of the flight went without incident. Flaps should be disabled for ferry requiring them to remain in position. That is the only solution to guard against the human factor. Muscle memory compels us to do many things in the flight deck.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported they were released for a ferry flight with flaps to be left at position 20; but they inadvertently retracted them to position 8.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: FO (First Officer) and I both believed with confidence that ATC had instructed us to turn right to a heading upon reaching CLUSO. Neither of us had any doubt about the matter. When we turned at CLUSO; however; ORD TRACON advised us that we were supposed to turn at KAYTO instead. This came as a surprise to both of us. That was the first instance we had any doubt about what our clearance had been. At that point; second-guessing ourselves; the FO and I began to wonder whether we had read back 'KAYTO' or 'CLUSO' when first given the heading clearance. Both waypoints sound similar when pronounced; and this similarity may have contributed to this new doubt. So; we were not sure if the error was ours or ATC's. In any case; ATC informed us that there was 'no problem' with the turn and then gave us further vectors. There was no traffic conflict.In retrospect; the only thing that may have played a role in any confusion that may have occurred with either ATC or with us is that 'KAYTO' and 'CLUSO' can sound similar; causing the wrong term to be ensconced in memory.Consider not having waypoints in close proximity to each other that may sound similar when pronounced.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a track deviation during arrival to ORD after turning left at CLUSO Intersection rather than KAYTO Intersection as cleared. Captain stated CLUSO and KAYTO can be similarly pronounced and therefore confused by crews.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC cleared us for takeoff; and prior to 80 knots; on the takeoff roll; they cancelled our takeoff clearance. As we were coming to a stop; we had to ask them what they wanted us to do. We were told to clear the runway. We went through our procedures and checklists to prepare for another takeoff. I queried ATC as to what the reason was for the canceled takeoff; and the Tower told us '[another aircraft] was on top of us and he thought it would be safer to keep us on the ground.' We got no further communication from ATC about the incident and took off without any further issue.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported ATC cancelled their takeoff clearance after they had begun takeoff roll due to another aircraft overflying them.