elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Company tuned to IND Center. We had a similar call sign; aircraft on the same frequency; all simultaneously. Similar call signs like this on regularly scheduled; on time flights should never be in the same airspace simultaneously. Similar call signs contribute to likelihood of a pilot accepting another flight's frequency change or clearance resulting in a possible pilot deviation or even worse; a mid-air collision.




Synopsis: B737-700 pilot reported their company has similar sounding call signs scheduled in the same airspace simultaneously; causing confusion.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UNV.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D UNV
ATC / advisory: Tower UNV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were asked by University Park Tower to fly the right base to final approach runway 24. While on the base leg just about to initiate the turn to final; I heard the 'terrain; terrain; pull up; pull up'. I was non-flying pilot and took the controls to initiate the climb procedure to clear the terrain pull up warning. Once we were cleared of the warning; I transferred control to the first officer to continue the approach.The threats that I encountered was that it was very dark; and the terrain was not visible. I was also bothered by the fact that Tower asked us to fly the base to final approach at 2700 feet. Noting the chart the approach safe altitude shows an initial 3100 feet. In my view; I did not listen to the voice inside me telling me to fly this portion of the approach at 3100 feet. I am somewhat familiar with the airport area and took it for granted that the Tower was giving us a reasonable altitude. I was also a bit distracted by looking forward to spending the night at State College which tells me that I was not completely present.While flying an approach at night time; ask for vectors for an instrument approach to be more conservative with the transition to the approach corridor. Continued adherence to the Flight Operations Manual and training that was received in the training center set us up to take corrective action to keep us safe.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain alert on a night visual approach to UNV airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
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: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I came on duty for an early morning day shift as flight Dispatcher for company. It was a busy morning as a Captain called wanting his flight plan that had not yet been done yet and I reviewed the weather; I noticed I had to amend a flight plan done on the midnight shift to change to a legal alternate. That flight was due at its destination in about 35 minutes. Thirty-eight minutes later I also got an ACARS message from a flight; asking if the RNAV departure out of his departure airport was not authorized for a non-GPS equipped airplane due to a NOTAM stating that. I confirmed the NOTAM stated that the SID was not authorized for non-GPS planes. Flight was still sitting at the gate. At the time I came on duty that flight had already been flight planned and the terms of the flight plan had been accepted by the Captain's signature on the release. The Captain claims he was cleared by ATC on the RNAV SID; and the Dispatcher was at fault. I had not flight planned or ATC filed this flight; but did assume responsibility as the relieving Dispatcher. As I had not done the original paperwork; I could not confirm all that had occurred on the previous shift. However; ATC routinely assigns SID's and STARS to flights without regard to their GPA capabilities. The Dispatcher that I relieved has since told me that he did not plan or ATC file the RNAV departure for that flight.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported that a non-GPS equipped B757-200 he became responsible for after shift change; was issued an RNAV departure which was NOTAMed GPS only by either ATC or the Dispatcher.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout from FL260 to FL320 noted to occurrences of an engine surge on the right engine. Fuel flow and EGT on the associated engine remained above normal after engine stabilized. Contacted Maintenance and Dispatch. After conference; decision made to return to the departure airport. Fuel dump required on descent to land under max landing weight.


Second narrative: I was on first break when the crew call chime rang earlier then planned. I immediately called the cockpit and the Captain informed me we were heading back to the departure airport. I woke up the other Relief Pilot and then went up to cockpit. The Captain was coordinating with Dispatch and the flying First Officer was coordinating with ATC regarding fuel dump. We dumped fuel on the way back to the departure airport and the Captain made an uneventful landing.


Synopsis: A B777 right engine surged during climb at FL260 with fuel flow and EGT remaining above normal so fuel was dumped as the flight returned to the departure airport for an uneventful landing.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cessna departed the airport and requested VFR flight following. Due to a language barrier; it was very difficult to understand the call sign. The airplane was eastbound at approximately 6;500 MSL. Looking ahead at traffic; and understanding the language barrier; I in plain language told the pilot the aircraft needed to be at appropriate VFR cruising altitudes. There was an opposite direction target at 6;400 MSL the exact altitude. I called traffic. The pilot acknowledged. As they continued to get closer and obviously merging; I again warned the pilot to climb. We then found the call sign was incorrect; but the pilot was answering the calls. At four miles; the targets looked very likely to merge I told the pilot to deviate right and maintain VFR. The aircraft did not turn. At two miles I again told the pilot to turn right; at a brief pause another pilot from the frequency said over the frequency 'turn right!' The pilot did and said thank you; the targets got very close.Radios may have been an issue; however the D-Side and I were both hearing different call signs. Language barrier was the biggest issue.




Synopsis: Language barrier between VFR pilot and Controller delayed an airborne conflict resolution with another VFR aircraft.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Other Push-back
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other push back
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Several times prior to push the tug drive asked to pull electrics. Per current SOP we delayed APU start. This tug driver did not use correct verbiage and showed great impatience. [Nine] min before scheduled push he again used non standard terms and said he was ready for push; I said standby. We completed the before push and called ramp for push. During the First Officers (FOs) call the tug driver again asked if we would release brakes. I said I would when I received my push clearance. Less than 10 seconds later the FO told me cleared to push spot D. He turned on the beacon I released the brakes and using intercom told the tug driver brakes released cleared to push spot D. I received no answer. I repeated the call. I then noticed the forward cargo door was opening. I told the FO to cancel our push and reset the brakes. What I found out was the driver left the tug to help load the bags. So while the belt loader was against the airplane and ground crew was loading bags our brakes were released no chocks and no one in the tug protecting against movement. I do not consider this a safe operation. At no time did the tug driver advise loading of additional bags. He removed himself from the headset after clearing me to release brakes. I called operations and asked for a supervisor. I was told none available; all in a meeting and it would take too long. As I could not trust this pushback crew; more to the point I doubted their training and ability to conduct a safe push back; I asked for another pushback crew. Again I was told it would take too long. I said fine I would wait. They ended up rotating a wing walker for the tug driver. Neither operations or the push crew seemed to think anything was out of the ordinary. I accepted the new drive and push was normal except again verbiage was incorrect and he forgot to clear us to start number 2 engine. I am concerned that this lack of standardization found on all levels of the ramp operation will get someone badly hurt or even killed. For a very short time while men and equipment were near; on; and in the cargo area; no one NO ONE was holding the airplane.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain reported what he felt were unsafe deviations from SOP during pushback.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X landing at CGE from sector 38 entered our airspace at FL270 and was given a straight decent to FL130 with out a restriction. The aircraft was PVD [Plan View Display] to sectors 21 below us and 11 north of us. The R side pointed the aircraft out to sector 21. The aircraft was handed off to TAPPA sector in PCT. We then noticed the altitude in the data block read FL070 but neither the R side or myself did that. I called sector 11 and referenced this aircraft who had the PVD and asked if they put in FL070. They said no and that they didn't have track control. I called TAPPA and asked if they put in FL070. He said yes and I mentioned that we have never seen PCT be able to put in an ALT on our scope before. He said to just keep the aircraft going to FL130.  The R side kept him going to FL130 and switched the aircraft to TAPPA freq. Sector 11 called me and asked if Aircraft X had a crossing restriction.  I said no; he has a straight decent to FL130.  My prior reference of this aircraft and them calling me asking about a restriction was all done prior to the aircraft entering sector 11's airspace.  They said ok and hung up the line.I asked the R side if he had been pointed out to 11.  He thought I had done it and I thought he had done it and that 11 was well aware of the aircraft due to the two prior calls but then phrase 'Point out approved' was never stated on the land line.  The R side and I also had confusion about this point out due to the conversation and calls regarding the altitude of FL070 somehow being entered in to the data block by the TAPPA controller at Potomac Approach.When the aircraft was at about FL185 I called 11 to confirm the aircraft was point out approved and they confirmed that it was even though the aircraft was already in their airspace.Less confusion about what Potomac Approach can do to change the altitude of the data block on our scope.  The aircraft should have been pointed out.  It was a confusion between the R side and I and with the R side at 11.




Synopsis: ZDC controller reports of something he hadn't ever seen before. PCT has the ability to change altitudes of data tags on his center scope. Controller reports that a sector at PCT did this and it caused confusion and an airspace deviation by them doing so.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
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: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise altitude of 370 the following failures occurred:1. HYD B ELEC PUMP LO PR (electric pump failed)2. ANTI-ICE L WINDOW3. ANTI-ICE L WINDSHIELD4. AIR PACK 1 REGUL FAULT5. CAPT MAP DISPLAY UNIT FAILEDPrior to the system failures a pronounced electrical arcing sound was heard by both pilotsECAM procedures were conducted per SOPs. [ATC was notified] and aircraft was diverted.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported issues with the electrical system in cruise resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
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 FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing in ZZZZ; completing leg one of the foreign country trip; I was advised that the aircraft required an immediate Service Check because it was not compliant.  Apparently the B767-300 had been sitting in ZZZ1 for a few days; and while a daily check had been done; the Service Check had expired. Maintenance Control told me that they were very sorry they missed it but it had to be done in ZZZZ immediately so we would be legal. I felt responsible that I had missed it but the First Officer produced the FOM which says the following in the Maintenance Procedures chapter; 'AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE BLOCK-The airworthiness release block is a Maintenance function. After servicing; checks and inspection intervals are a Maintenance responsibility.'  Also reviewed was the following from the Flight Crew Chapter; under Preflight: Aircraft airworthiness will be determined by the Captain prior to the initiation of the Before Start Checklist. In making this determination; the captain will ensure that all discrepancies entered in the aircraft Log have been cleared or deferred in accordance with the approved MEL/CDL.'It appears that I am free of responsibility of any maintenance inspections; but I realize that even so; I'm still the Captain; and if the aircraft wasn't compliant I bear responsibility. The Mechanic in ZZZZ did the required inspection and we proceeded on our way and completed the trips a bit late. Upon returning to ZZZ1; a Mechanic remarked that Maintenance [at our company's headquarters] didn't tell them there was an inspection due; which is why it hadn't been completed.




Synopsis: A Captain was informed by Maintenance Control that the B767-300 aircraft he had just landed in a foreign country required an immediate Service Check because the aircraft was not compliant prior to his departure. The First Officer showed Captain the FOM Chapter that stated the Airworthiness Release block sign-off was a Maintenance function responsibility for servicing; checks; and inspection intervals.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician; Parts / Stores Personnel
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An aircraft part going [from] ZZZ that was not Hazmat. On paper work it said Hazmat. It is not Hazmat if it come from vendor. This part was checked by looking and smelling and computer that it came from vendor. This makes it a not Hazmat; but paperwork from window says Hazmat. Policy is to check if from vendor it is not Hazmat to get the parts out on time. He did that. We have different policy on shipping potential Hazmat. It depend on were the part is going. If it is a potential Hazmat; we use to ship it like a domestic flight. We check to see; smell; [and check] computer work to see if it is Hazmat by policy. Now today; they say if it is potential Hazmat going overseas; ship it as it was Hazmat. We would like some help in this. We really do not have a great idea at this time but we need to report this matter.




Synopsis: Commercial airline Lead Technician reported documentation discrepancies during shipping and receiving of aircraft parts due to confusing company handling procedures.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Off Duty
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the return flight I was deadheading because I was illegal to fly back. At about 20 minutes prior to landing I went to the back galley to have some water and all the sudden we noticed a cabin odor. We started asking some passengers if they smelled it too. And they did. It was a smell of old moldy socks but also kind of acid and sweet at the same time. We realized it was the smell that everyone talks about. We landed pretty fast and the Lead Flight Attendant informed the Captain. No one got sick or had any kind of reaction toward the odor since we landed so fast. We might not have been exposed long enough to have any kind of concerns. No passengers were sick during this incident.




Synopsis: During descent for landing a B767-200 developed a cabin dirty socks odor which was detected by both flight attendants and passengers.