elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201710
Location: ZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to TO (Takeoff) I used the automated cabin announcement system to notify the flight attendants that we were ready for TO. While doing so I monitored the PA to make sure the announcement was actually made; which it was. When exiting the flight deck to initiate the rest period I was told that at least three flight attendants were standing up when the TO was made. Throughout the flight I heard three different excused for this having happened; two of which contradict one another. 1); I was told that the period of time between the announcement and the actual TO was too long and so they disregarded the announcement thinking we would make a follow up announcement. This is absurd as the announcement was made at an appropriate time; and SOP does not provide any guidelines for making a secondary announcement. 2) The same FA (Flight Attendant) who gave me excuse number one later changed her story and said the announcement wasn't heard at all. Clearly false. 3) A second FA told me that she heard the announcement but felt she couldn't comply with it as she was still taking meal orders from business class customers. She intentionally violated policy; put safety at risk; and clearly managed her time poorly. Every time [I] go to some sort of recurrent training event the topic of FA injuries is discussed. I hate the idea of someone getting hurt on a flight I am operating; so when I know something like this happened it is very upsetting.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported miscommunication resulting in several Flight Attendants still standing during takeoff.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Multiple crew members asked passenger to comply with mask policy during various phases of flight. After 3rd attempt; his demeanor; hostility; and inappropriate language; the passenger was written up.  The guest had a flagrant disregard for authority from the moment we started the demo when the C FA told him to comply with an FAA policy; and the guest ignored him; when asked for compliance again; this guest just looked at FA and replied 'I heard you the first time.'




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger did not comply with wearing a face mask.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GSP.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: APU was on MEL so external electrical power was necessary upon arrival at the gate at GSP.  The ground agent attempted several times to connect power from the gate without success.  He then came to the cockpit where express directions were given to obtain a power cart and also to not let the fueler start fueling.  About 5 minutes later with the engine still running at the gate and no external power; I noticed the fuel level rising on the fuel gauges.  I immediately shut down the idling left engine.The fueler failed to notice both the beacon and the engine running on the aircraft before he approached the aircraft and hooked up his equipment.  The ground agent who I spoke with was at the nose of the aircraft about to hook up the external power.  He drove right by the fueler; but failed to notice and stop the fueler from hooking up his equipment.GSP has recently had poor oversight and management of its employees and also seems to be lacking enough personnel to handle [this type of aircraft]. The fueler needs additional training on aircraft beacons and how to recognize when an engine is still running.External power should be working on every arrival.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the ramp crew at GSP created an unsafe situation when they deviated from SOPs and began fueling with an engine running.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working a combined position with sector 10; 11; and 12 combined at 12.  At approximately XA50 local I got the handoff on Aircraft X a ZZZ arrival at FL390 that was in cruise; but had to be descended beneath two aircraft Aircraft Y at FL360 and an Aircraft Z aircraft at FL380. I issued Aircraft X a crossing restriction to miss both pieces of traffic; 'Cross OTT at FL350'; but later corrected this to 'Cross 10 miles south of OTT at FL350' to over separate Aircraft X from Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z.  Aircraft X's pilot reported out of flight level 390 and was started his descent.   I rogered this and continued my duties. Over the course of my next coupe of scans and saw that separation was obtained for Aircraft X with Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z as Aircraft X leveled at FL350 complying with the restriction I had given him.  However; for his descent I used a interim altitude and could see his mode C altitude.  Between OTT and PALEO; where the suspected loss occurred; Aircraft X's reported Mode-C altitude varied between 350 and 351.  This is a common occurrence and I disregarded it was a equipment malfunction.  When Aircraft Y; still at FL360; got within 5 miles of Aircraft X; Aircraft X's reported Mode-C jumped to 351 and caused a suspected loss of separation which I only became aware of after reviewing the FALCON replay.  I did not verify Aircraft X's altitude to see if he was level at FL350 or if it was an equipment malfunction.  I cannot make a recommendation for this event because I feel my procedures were correct and the restriction I gave to Aircraft X ensured separation with both of the conflictions.  The fluctuating Mode-C altitude; in my opinion; was the cause of the separation error and it just a fault of the system between the transponder on the aircraft and the receiver on the ground.




Synopsis: Enroute controller reported a possible loss of separation but only after the suspected conflict was identified after a reviewed on the FALCON replay system.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure I made contact with Approach and was assigned squawk for flight following to destination. While climbing to cruising altitude of 9;500 FT there was a smell of burnt plastic and small amount of white smoke. All engine instruments indicate normal operation. No circuit breakers blown. Told ATC was going to change destination and return to the departure airport. [I] made the 180 to return still no indication from instruments of malfunction. Believing the smoke was electrical I turned off all radios and electronic devices not needed for flight and removed from under right seat the fire extinguisher and continued to my destination. Once I had the airport in sight I told Approach and they cleared me to change frequencies and to keep my assigned squawk. Still with small amount of white smoke made normal landing and taxi to parking. Before shutdown [I had] no indication from instruments of abnormal operation. After shutdown opened all doors and let light smoke out. No indication of any further smoke accumulation at this time. I believe the cause of the events to be directly related to hand held GPS that was wired and mounted in the panel during annual.




Synopsis: A C210 pilot detected a burnt plastic odor and a small amount of white smoke; so he returned to his departure airport where he discovered a failed portable GPS receiver which was wired into the aircraft electrical system.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
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: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain flying pilot. At cruise FL360. Number 2 engine ITT on the EICAS spiked twice. The temperature got as high as 10-15 degrees. With the spikes two separate vibrations were felt. The Number 2 engine then had a uncommanded shutdown. I checked the oil level on the MFD and saw it was at 4 QTS. Departing we had at least 10 QTS in the Number 2 engine. I followed the emergency procedure for an engine failure and called for the EPC and AOM. We declared an emergency with ATC and asked for emergency equipment to be standing by in FAR. Notified the Flight Attendant who was already aware of the problem. She and the passengers felt and heard the vibrations. The Flight Attendant said the passenger were concerned but calm. The First Officer ran the appropriate checklists and radios. He also made a PA to the passengers. Our single engine descent was smooth and we were vectored in for an ILS approach. The approach went well. We landed smoothly and stopped in the required distance. Crash and rescue checked the exterior of the aircraft and did not see any debris; leakage; smoke or fire. We taxied to the gate and deplaned without further incident. Passengers all seemed to be calm. Notified Dispatch and Maintenance Control then entered the information in the AML.




Synopsis: An EMB145 engine auto shutdown in flight after an engine oil system problem. An emergency was declared; the QRH completed and the flight proceeded to its filed destination.
Date: 201906
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: Ramp
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other at gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After arrival and with the aircraft stopped; the white paint spiral on the engine inlet spinner was not visible. We were just audited and this is one of the things that we failed on; however; this practice is unsafe in its entirety. As the marshaller of the aircraft; I am about 100 feet from the engines and the wing walkers are 15 feet away and they have a much better chance of seeing; and hearing the engine from that distance than I do from the distance that I am. Sometimes it is extremely hard; if not impossible to see the engine fan blades; especially at night or in inclement weather. Furthermore; many of our aircraft have faded; chipped; or missing paint from the spinner; making the spirals nonexistent. I don't have any special training to know that the engines have spooled down to a sufficient speed nor do I have any special equipment to measure the RPM's of the spooling down engine. Standing that far away while having to get the jetbridge up to the aircraft; get the nose gear chocked; and keep the wands crossed until we get the chocks in; is a lot of tasks to accomplish before trying to see if it is safe for the wing walkers to approach the aircraft. It's very uncomfortable having the expectations and safety of a fellow coworker in my hands when there is no way of me being able to see or fulfill that obligation when I cannot see the fan blades; the spiral is worn off; and we are tasked with doing so many things at that very limited; yet critical time.




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp agent reported that aircraft parking procedures do not have adequate safety constraints.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Hand flown visual approach at night. At approximately 4 miles from touchdown; First Officer stated; 'you're slow.' I checked my airspeed indicator and speed was right at bottom of bug. I stated; 'I'm right on'. Two more calls from the First Officer approximately 15 seconds apart stating I was slow. First Officer never stated how slow. I saw nothing except minor deviations of plus or minus 2-3 knots and prompt; timely corrections. I suspected there may be instrument error as aircraft had pitot system drained prior to flight. Approach was very smooth; on course and on glide path. At approximately 2 miles and 800 feet; First Officer called tower and stated we were going around. For a moment; I thought First Officer stated this over the Intercom Communication System and then Tower responded with go around instructions. As PIC; I immediately called Tower and asked him to disregard the transmission. Tower complied and reissued landing clearance. Aircraft continued on a stable approach to touchdown and uneventful taxi to gate.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported that an error was suspected in the First Officer's airspeed indication and therefore the landing was continued after the First Officer called for a go-around.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At a cruise altitude of 8000 ft; the manifold pressure on the left engine decreased to approximately 22' from 28'. The engine was still producing thrust; but was obviously not operating normally. At the time; I was talking to Approach Control and told them I would like to modify my flight plan and divert. As an experienced pilot; Aviate; Navigate; and Communicate were the words I turned into actions. Analyzing the left engine; running the checklist; and setting up for the approach became my priorities. I was already cleared direct to the field so there was very little communicating I need to do. When handed off to Tower; I was concentrating on an appropriate approach for my condition; slightly steeper to maintain energy in case the left engine failed. As I didn't answer the Tower immediately when they addressed me; the guy said 'I'm declaring for you'. I did not counter his action frankly because I didn't care what he did. My intention was to declare if the left engine stopped producing thrust. Also; as a [Fighter] pilot who has [had] emergencies over 20 times; I am quick to use the resource if needed. In this case; there was no need. The result of the antsy Controller who doesn't understand he is at the bottom of my list of priorities is that now the FAA wants information on a [situation] that wasn't [necessary]. Of course; I supplied them the requested information immediately upon hearing of their request.There needs to be more training for Controllers that a pilot has more to do than talk to a Controller; especially when things are not normal. His disposition and non-stop communications addressed at me was the set up for taking a non-normal situation and turning it into a disaster; e.g. landing gear up or worse. I understand it's within the rights of a Controller to declare if he feels it is in the best interest of the aircraft; but in this case; he added to the work load of a single pilot complex aircraft scenario.




Synopsis: PA-34 pilot reported an unnecessary increase in workload while troubleshooting a malfunctioning engine due to extensive communications by the Tower.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LNK.Tower, NE
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E R90
ATC / advisory: Tower LNK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X contacted LNK Tower; 118.5 when 25 miles west of LNK wanting to go to SDA. I was working all the frequencies and had numerous aircraft calling on Clearance and Ground. I assumed that the aircraft was trying to get a clearance to depart LNK to SDA. After several transmissions I figured out that Aircraft X was not on the ground at LNK and needed to contact R90; 'Omaha Approach' to transition through the LNK area airspace. I was also working complex traffic with two H/K35R in the VFR pattern on the west side of the airport; and multiple VFR aircraft departing on the east side of the airport; most also wanting to fly westbound. When Aircraft X called he caused additional frequency congestion and created a frustrating and an unsafe situation since he was flying in another controller's airspace on the incorrect frequency. The pilot may have been confused due to the name change of the airspace.Pilots are confused when transitioning through the LNK area airspace on who to contact for clearance. Several months ago the airspace changed names from 'Lincoln Approach/Departure' to 'Omaha Approach/Departure'. I think that pilots assume that since they are flying near Lincoln they need to contact us and not approach since they are not flying in Omaha area; which is 60 miles NE of LNK. The name for the LNK sector for approach needs to be changed back to 'Lincoln Approach/Departure' to decrease pilot confusion and increase safety in this airspace. Having the pilot contact Tower also increases the workload on the Tower Controller; which can become a safety concern when there is already busy traffic.




Synopsis: LNK Local Controller reports of aircraft calling Tower; causing frequency congestion and confusion. Aircraft should have been on Approach Control frequency which name had previously changed from Lincoln to Omaha Approach.