elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During my preflight; I had confirmed that the Crew Oxygen level was at 1200 PSI. Enroute I wrote up the Captain's O2 Mask Housing needs [to be] secured. Maintenance corrected the housing [at our enroute stop]. I noted that the O2 level had decreased below 1000 PSI. Enroute to [next destination]; at FL320 I noted that the O2 level had decreased to below 500 PSI. Checking the limitations section of the FM; I saw that the level was below that required for Dispatch. I notified [Maintenance] on ACARS and submitted a [maintenance] code for low Crew Oxygen pressure. My FO and I discussed possibly flying at a lower altitude due to the depleting Oxygen supply. We brought [Dispatch] into the conversation. The [Flight Operations Manager] immediately joined the conversation. Together we agreed that the best course of action was a diversion to land [at a nearby alternate]. We notified ATC and received a clearance [to the alternate]. I notified the flight attendants and the passengers. We landed uneventfully.Coincidentally; this is my second B737 Crew Oxygen issue in a month. I started a trip earlier in the month and found an airplane with [zero] Crew Oxygen pressure.




Synopsis: B737 NG Captain reported diverting to an alternate when the crew oxygen pressure dropped below 500 PSI while enroute.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Other Dispatch Issue
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: No dispatch view available because another Dispatcher was signed in to my Sector when I came to work today. I see this as a loss of operational control because over the first two hours of my shift today I was unable to communicate through ACARS with my flights. I notified the Dispatch Manager and the IT Department about this issue and; almost two hours later there is still no dispatch view is available.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher discovered that he was unable to receive communications from flights that he was responsible for due to another Dispatcher being signed in to receive those communications.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bell Helicopter 412
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Rotor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Both engines of aircraft were started and a medical staff member disconnected GPU. Co-pilot engaged generators. I (PIC) began to roll up the throttles to 100 percent when aircraft began to spin counter-clockwise. I added right pedal and made sure collective was full down. [I] continued to add pedal until at full stops and spin continued. [I] rolled off the throttles. Medic was knocked to the ground by aircraft; no injuries other than scraped knee. Aircraft came to rest after spinning 270 degrees. Aircraft was 0.8 hours out of major maintenance. Aircraft struck a plastic pillar on side of pad with tail boom and co-pilot's chin bubble; minimal damage. Aircraft was trucked to a maintenance facility for further inspection. Both co-pilot and PIC were in agreement that no left pedal was in due to prestart check and that the collective was full down. Aircraft left deep scars in the concrete through whole spin.




Synopsis: Bell 412; recently out of maintenance; started counterclockwise spin on startup as soon as pilot rolled RPM up toward 100%. Full right pedal; full down collective; and RPM roll back stopped spin at 270 degrees. Minor injury to ground assistant and minor damage to aircraft.
Date: 202110
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: You will fly with one Captain and they are on one side of the vaccine mandate and go off on why they are right for hours; then land; swap Crews and the next one is on the other side of the fence and rambles for hours.  Usually it's not a problem; but it's getting more aggressive as time goes on; and I'm getting tired of hearing about it. It's a distraction to the flight; makes me lose focus; causes fatigue. I'm starting to question if after XX years in the airline industry if I should go to do something more professional.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported vaccine mandate conversations in the cockpit during flight are becoming a distraction and resulting in loss of focus and fatigue.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DTL.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: CTAF DTL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Checked NOTAMs for DTL; read there was PJE (Parachute Jumping Exercise) within 3 mile radius of airport. Took runway intersection and took off. Upon return to the airport I saw there were yellow 'Xs' put over numbers of the airport. I was unable to see them when I took off due to the intersection takeoff. I thought that they had something to do with the PJEs since there was nothing about the runaways being closed in the NOTAMs.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reports departing DTL from a runway intersection; with only Parachute Jumping Exercise (PJE) as an airport NOTAM. Upon return to the airport; yellow Xs are noted over the runway numbers.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ELP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Citation Excel was on the SAMMR Arrival which descends to 080 at the end of it at SARRT. I instructed the Excel to depart SAMMR heading 345 degrees. He read back 345 degrees. I should have caught the hearback readback because I meant to issue 245 degrees off of SAMMR. The Excel did as instructed and turned north heading 345 degrees off of SAMMR which put him in a 085 MVA at 080. I turned him back southbound and climbed him to 085. During this time I had 4-5 people trying to talk to me at the same time and was distracted. Recommendation; tell people that aren't important and distracting to shut up. The arrival itself descends through a 085 MVA to 080. So if there is a mistake like mine or a pilot deviation and the pilot turns north he is already below the 085 MVA. Also if we are on long range RADAR that MVA becomes 090 and the STAR descends to 080 right through it. Recommend that the arrival descend to 085 instead of 080.




Synopsis: ELP Controller described an MVA infraction when failing to note an incorrect read back on an altitude assignment.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Rain; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO; Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; 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: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I flew to OAK at night and have the following issues. When arriving from the east and when OAK is landing runway 12 we fly the BANND One RNAV arrival Jepp page 10-2A. This arrival procedure has aircraft crossing LOHGN intersection at a speed of 230 knots and to cross at or above 6;000 feet. This is a legal clearance because LOHGN is just outside of the lateral limits of the SFO Class B airspace (by only about two miles). However; the next two points on the arrival are WHYEE at or above 5;000 feet and HIRMO at 4;000 feet. These two points are in the lateral limits of the SFO Class B airspace; and below the published vertical limits of the Class B for that sector of 10;000 feet to 6;000 feet requiring a speed of 200 knots. My biggest concern is that the BANND One arrival is designed to put you below the Class B airspace at 230 knots. I would be happy to fly this procedure as published but I know that could lead to possible problems with violating an FAR speed restriction. Is it legal to fly at 230 knots below the floor of the SFO Class B airspace on this arrival procedure? Calling into question the legality and design of the BANND One Arrival Rwy 12 into OAK. Clarification from the FAA or the Arrival design group as to the legality of the published speed for this procedure into OAK.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain flying the OAK BANND ONE RNAV Arrival to Runway 12 noted the procedure design requires crossing the WHYEE and HIRMO waypoints below SFO Class B at or above 5;000 and 4;000 feet respectively at 230 kts which is above the 200 kts speed constraint.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: COS.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C COS
ATC / advisory: TRACON COS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I turned Aircraft X on a 200 heading to intercept the localizer. As they're in the turn there's a VFR data block crossing the final 3 miles ahead of them. I give them traffic. They say they have traffic in sight. They began to descend 200 feet even they were not cleared on the approach. I keyed up to give the approach clearance. I said their call sign but my instructor told me to give a low altitude alert; so I gave them a low altitude alert and advised they climb. They said they should've told me they were descending for the traffic they had in sight and began their climb. I cleared them on the approach below the MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) when I should've waited until they were at least at 8900 feet. I think we should extend the Class Charlie airspace out to a point where we can vector aircraft to final for an instrument approach without having to run into conflict like this because of VFRs crossing over the final at that exact point.




Synopsis: COS TRACON Trainee reported they vectored an aircraft that had descended to avoid VFR traffic below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CHD.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D CHD
ATC / advisory: Tower CHD
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final; I was lined up for [Runway] 4L. I lost GPS which immediately resulted in TAWS warnings (pull up; pull up; etc) with the MFD map showing the wrong airport. This is my home airport; I knew where I was. While lined up for [Runway] 4L; Tower asked me to confirm I was lined up for [Runway] 4L; the correct runway. I confirmed I was lined up; the MFD showing the wrong airport; asked to ident; and then I panicked and thought I must be at one of the other nearby airports. I asked if Tower could see me and with the delayed response; I deviated from approach assuming they could not see me; which caused the issue with landing traffic.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported the loss of GPS information led to incorrect airport information; a false terrain warning; and an airborne traffic conflict.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Signed on and had my data blocks go full bright. The relieved Controller's method of tracking NORAC's is to highlight the aircraft he is talking to. My method is the complete opposite (I highlight the ones I am NOT talking to.) It is very distracting and consumes valuable time right after assuming control of the sector to have to go to each and every aircraft to unwell the data block. We need one simple standardized way to track NORAC's. While changing over to my system of tracking NORACs I missed a hand off flashing at me and Sector 13 had to call. Later on Sector 46 asked if I could try flight ABC to Sector 13 frequency because they were NORAC. When I checked to see if the aircraft was on my frequency they were still there so I must have converted the dwell but thought I didn't. I thought the aircraft had already been shipped to Sector 13 by the Controller had being relieved because of the difference in tracking methods and the conversion process. Implement a standard method for tracking NORAC's so that there is no need for switching methods immediately after taking over a sector. In the meanwhile create a function to allow an all aircraft dwell toggle so that I can toggle all data blocks immediately to my dwell method of tracking NORACs. If I could toggle all data blocks to the opposite of what they are then that would be great.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller described a confused relief effort when the relieving controller utilized the exact opposite procedure regarding data block illuminations; the reporter suggesting a common facility procedure be adopted.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: STS.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Light Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D STS; Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Tower STS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While working CIC; ZOA notified us that Aircraft X was [making an urgent landing] due to loss of their alternator. They had 1 soul on board and could possibly lose their transponder on approach. They coordinated opposite direction ILS 32 which was approved. I reached out to ZOA before they set Aircraft X for approach and informed them of the strong tailwind with gusting winds. That they weren't going to be able to land RWY 32. ZOA asked what the ceiling was and it was 007 which was above the circling minimum. On approach we gave Aircraft X the winds and she said she wasn't going to be able to land that RWY. She would need to circle. Aircraft X never got the field in sight. LCL advised that the ceiling was much higher midfield and she'd then be able to circle to land RWY 14 or RWY 20. She then said she was loading up the approach for RWY 2. She never advised us the field in sight or that she was circling. We never saw her and LCL asked her position and she said she was 5 miles out on RWY 2. We immediately informed ZOA. She then said she was in IMC setting up for RWY 2 and she was getting blown around by the strong winds. I thought I heard LCL ask if she could start her missed approach for RWY 32 at her current position. But after reviewing the tapes; LCL asked if she wanted to go back to Center which she replied with yes. ZOA thought she was on the missed and said to have her climb to 070. But she was on a 070 heading not on the published missed approach. Aircraft X got vectored back for RNAV RWY 14 and landed safely without incident. Airport authorities were notified with an alert 2. I would have recommended LCL to advise Aircraft X if she could start a missed approach.




Synopsis: STS Tower Controller reported an aircraft coming into land with alternator problems; attempting to land opposite direction with low ceilings and windy.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The pushback started well with good; standardized communications. Early in the pushback; the captain was told by push crew 'cleared to start 1 or 2 or both.' Captain acknowledged 'clear to start.' Captain instructed probationary FO to start 1 and 2. As the aircraft came to a stop; with engine 1 about to reach idle; push crew stated 'here comes late bags; can we put them on?' Captain replied with a strong 'negative.' Captain believed FO was starting engine 2 and did not want to interrupt the start sequence. Again pushback crew asked 'can we put on bags?' Captain gave another strong 'negative; we are in the middle of our start sequence!' Captain felt forward cargo door open and asked 'did you hear me say negative?' Pushback crew said something to the effect 'yea; but got the lead talking at me too; it'll be closed in a minute.' The very astute FO realized something was wrong hearing me repeat strong 'negatives' and did not begin engine 2 start. Captain explained to pushback crew that someone could have easily been killed. This did not seem to bother the tug driver. Throughout this exchange the parking brake had never been set. Captain asked for tug driver's name and file number. Captain called operations and explained what had occurred. Captain passed name to operations and emphasized how dangerous the situation had been and asked that the tug driver not push another aircraft until this had been addressed.




Synopsis: During pushback; the ground crew cleared pilots for engine start then requested to open the forward cargo door for late bags. The request was denied; but the ground crew opened the door anyway. The #2 engine start had fortunately been delayed.