elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SJC
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; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed on 12R instructed to cross 12L at F. Ground ATC instructed; taxi Z to the gate. Upon crossing 12L I turned the wrong direction; stopped and had the FO call for new taxi instructions. Told ATC we made a wrong turn. ATC gave new instructions to taxi Z; E; D; Y to the gate. Upon completing the turn on Yankee; Ground gave us a number to call. I complied once at the gate. The Supervisor asked if I saw the NOTAM that taxiway between D and E on Zulu was closed. I said yes; however; was following ground ATC new taxi instructions. Since I received this clearance and there were no markers or lights indicating the taxiway was closed; I assumed it was now open. The ATIS with the NOTAM was 35 minutes old. The Supervisor said; 'Actually it is open for towed aircraft; but we don't like to advertise it.'In any event; if my aircraft did not belong on that 'Closed' taxiway; ATC should have never given me a clearance to taxi on it and there should have been some type of markings/lights indicating it was closed; especially at night.I made a wrong turn off the runway; should have studied the gates and referenced the taxiways. And when ATC's instructions where contrary to ATIS; NOTAM; we should have inquired.In any event; if my aircraft did not belong on that 'Closed' taxiway; ATC should have never given me a clearance to taxi on it and there should have been some type of markings/lights indicating it was closed; especially at night.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported turning on the incorrect taxiway; then ATC issued another clearance which included taxiing on a closed portion of a taxiway.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: First Officer was flying a very demanding approach due to high crosswinds. After landing; I was taking control of the aircraft to make a high speed turnoff. Tower asked us what gate we were going to; as I was calling for 'flaps up' and slowing the aircraft on the high speed taxiway. At this time; we were issued instructions to turn right on Taxiway A and hold short of Taxiway A5. These instructions from Tower were being issued as we were completing our After Landing Flows. Since we were both busy; while the Tower was issuing these instructions; I was not able to write them down as I normally do. Once I got the aircraft slowed down on Taxiway A; I incorrectly thought I was supposed to HOLD SHORT of Runway 26R at Taxiway A5; when we were supposed to hold short of Taxiway A5 on Taxiway A; as the Tower Controller queried us why were not holding short of Taxiway A5. There was also a lot of activity on the Tower Control radio.




Synopsis: B737-800 Non Flying Captain reported a taxiway incursion and referenced the Tower's timing giving the taxi instructions.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
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: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I] was Captain on [this] flight; approximately 90 minutes into the flight and level at FL 290 an ECAM warning message was generated. FUEL ACT XFR FAULT. After confirming it was not an immediate action or an ECAM exception and confirming a fault with the transfer of fuel from the additional center tanks I completed the ECAM procedure; which was unsuccessful. As directed by the procedure a descent was made to FL270 and another attempt was made to transfer fuel; with no success. ECAM procedure was then completed and QRH follow Up procedures were applied; which included FUEL ACT UNUSABLE (321) and ECAM supplemental. After calculating usable fuel on board; Dispatch and Maintenance Operation Center (MOC) were contacted. With insufficient fuel on board to continue to the destination; and adhering to the QRH directed maximum flight time of 2.5 hours; MOC requested; if possible; a diversion to [airport ZZZ]. Dispatch was given Fuel On Board (FOB) and usable FOB and concurred with MOC to divert to ZZZ. I requested ZZZ weather; new route; fuel burn and amended release. FAs and Passengers were advised of diversion; given arrival time and FAs were requested to prepare the cabin. Dispatch was advised of landing weight in ZZZ and I accomplished QRH overweight landing procedure; including confirming landing distance required. Flight Manual (FM) 1 was reviewed for diversion/overweight guidance. ATC [was advised] and normal landing was accomplished using longest available runway in ZZZ adhering to overweight landing procedures. Required Aircraft Maintenance Log (AML) entries were made upon gate arrival. Flight continued to [original destination] after 90 minute delay at gate.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: An A321 ECAM alerted FUEL ACT XFR FAULT; but crew ECAM actions were unable to resolve the fault so with insufficient fuel to reach their filed destination; the flight diverted for maintenance.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 1. Prior to departure from ZZZ; I requested the ZZZ Ground Controller to set me up with VFR flight following to my destination. They responded by saying that they were unable; but to contact ATC once airborne. 2. I departed ZZZ at XA:25 local time. Tower requested I fly runway heading on departure.3. Around 7;000 feet MSL; the Tower requested I fly west to accommodate incoming traffic.  Which I complied with.4. I wasn't completely due west yet; when ZZZ Tower advised that I was clear of their Airspace; to assume my own navigation; and to contact Center for flight following.  I tried reaching Center twice without a response.  Although Center could hear me; Center would not acknowledge my transmission. The reason I know they could hear me; is because I could hear them.5. All of a sudden I heard ATC request for Aircraft Y to exercise evasive action as they were headed straight for me.  I had Aircraft Y on my screen with the help of ADSB; so I deviated south to avoid an incursion.  6. I finally got acknowledgment from ATC about 3 minutes after the event.  7. The Controller provided me with a squawk; then instructed me to write down a phone number.  8. I requested the controllers initials so as to document the parties involved; but he denied my request.  9. ATC then transferred me to another frequency.  10. Reason for possible collision:    1. Ground control at ZZZ unwillingness to set me up with flight following prior to departure.    2. ATC's delay/unwillingness to acknowledge my transmission.     3. Tower at ZZZ erroneous radar vectors that could have put me in a collision course with the oncoming Aircraft Y without ATC's knowledge.      4. Lack of communication between ZZZ Tower and Center.  11. To prevent future possible mid-air collisions; I would advise that Ground/Tower at ZZZ to be willing to set up VFR departing aircraft with flight following prior to departure on their clearance delivery frequency.  If ATC is ready for departing traffic; they could advise aircraft before it is too late.




Synopsis: Pilot reported attempting to receive flight following from Center; and being involved in a NMAC.
Date: 202004
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We anticipated a high load-factor on flight ZZZ-ZZZ1 as our pairing showed about XX bookings; so blocking all six rows may not be possible.We decided that if for no other reason than consistency for all FA crews; we would try to uphold the seating restrictions of 3 rows FWD and AFT. While I may feel fine personally allowing customers to sit in one additional row; and another FA two rows; some FAs may not feel comfortable allowing any leeway unless they had to.We had to redirect many customers back FWD because the Operations Agent refused to make a PA about the restrictions prior to boarding and the customers don't always pay attention to our PAs onboard.There were (understandably) a few frustrated customers; but we tried to explain the reasoning. We feel like there should be a bit more definition. It's very complicated when we don't have assigned seating and people just sit where their boarding pass tells them. If we block 6 rows total; that means we can't have more than X number of passengers on this type of aircraft (leaving an open middle seat between them); and with middle seats filled that brings us to a maximum of X number of passengers while still keeping our 6 rows.Can we possibly get some guidance on how to best handle this? I was trying to be consistent for every other FA's sake; so that customers understand what's expected. While I wouldn't tell a customer this; they have a choice in flying...and their travel should be limited to essential only. Plus; they don't all wear masks etc. Crews do not have a choice; we have to come to work and these restrictions are there to protect us. It puts us in a very uncomfortable position to have to manage our own safety in this way without any support or guidance.Hopefully this doesn't continue for much longer; but at the end of the day either our safety matters; or it doesn't. We can't expect Customers to do what we ourselves aren't even being consistent with and I shouldn't have to feel like the bad guy for protecting not only my own safety; but the safety of my crew.We need clarity. We need access to better signage (buckling seatbelts means nothing). We need OPS to make a PA about this when they announce we aren't doing service. We need to know it's ok to push back if we need to. Some Customers are used to doing as they please and right now there's not as much autonomy in their choices.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concerns with COVID-19 guidelines on blocking or not blocking seats and making reference to Flight Attendant/passenger safety.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-800
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: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Legal placard of #1 Generator; APU operation required for back up generator per MEL. APU serviced prior to initial departure per logbook placard and an uneventful first leg was completed. On the next leg; about 45 minutes from destination the APU failed which resulted in a single electrical power source operation.  The QRH directs a landing at the nearest suitable airport. I deemed ZZZ the nearest suitable for landing; declared an emergency for priority handling and landed. I commend my First Officer for his outstanding assistance during this event. In the future; I will consider day/night and weather considerations before accepting an aircraft with a deferred generator. There should be weather minima associated with the placarding of a generator to prevent this from occurring again.




Synopsis: When dispatched with one generator inoperative the flight crew of a B737-800 was forced to divert to their nearest suitable airport when the APU; required to be operative to provide a secondary electrical power source; failed enroute.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Compartment Fire/Overheat Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [During the flight]; we had a baggage smoke annunciation. We identified the annunciator and canceled the alarm. I called for the checklist and completed it. We [requested ATC assistance] and were cleared direct to the airport. We landed on Runway XX uneventfully. There was no smoke present upon landing and we were escorted to the ramp by fire vehicles. Once on the ramp we deplaned safely while fire crews examined the baggage compartments in both the nose and the tail. No smoke was found.


Second narrative: During descent we got a Baggage Smoke annunciator and master warning. Captain called for the QRC which we completed. We [advised ATC] and requested direct to the field. We also requested fire and rescue to meet us. The Captain briefed the passengers. We landed and were met by the fire trucks and crew. We determined there was no smoke or fire and then taxied to the FBO. The fire crew examined both baggage compartments and the cabin using a thermal cameras. No hot spots were detected. Passengers remained calm and thanked us afterward.


Synopsis: C525 flight crew reported a baggage compartment smoke warning; resulting in an unscheduled landing.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We took off out of ZZZ to ZZZ1 for a night ETOPS flight. Everything was normal. Although the crew was current; all hadn't flown much in the past XX months due to COVID. We briefed this fact and were aware that we would all have to be on our toes due to the fact that our flying skills were rusty.The flight was normal. We operated the flight very close to the flight plan.After a normal approach and smooth landing; we taxied to the gate. After shutting down the engines and performing the Parking Checklist; we were surprised to see an overweight landing message being printed. We had landed approximately 700 pounds overweight.We sent the appropriate overweight landing code and I called local maintenance to report the issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an overweight landing at destination airport caused by failure to monitor fuel burn during flight.  Captain cited rusty pilot skills caused by COVID inactivity as a contributing factor.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B HOU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was relieving a controller off of Finals and getting ready to brief my trainee on the position she was about to get into. I put my presets up and I notice Aircraft X at 2800 feet inside of the 3000 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) abeam and north of the antennas. I told the trainee to wait a second and asked the relieved controller 'what's he doing again?' The answer was 'direct ELREN because he wanted the visual.' I called the Operations Manager (OM) over and asked had the rules changed for discontinuing vertical separation from an obstruction? He said 'no...I don't think so'. Aircraft X was at 2300 feet past the antennas. I asked if he had the airport in sight. He said yes; I have the airport in sight; however he was looking for runway 4. I cleared him for the Visual Approach runway 4 and switched him to the Tower. I asked my OM who listened to the audio if Aircraft X descended on his own. He was given a descend and maintain by the previous controller.Controllers should know the rules and not be lazy and giving in to what the pilot wants.


Second narrative: An aircraft [had] been vectored on left base to Runway 4 for Hobby airport. I descended the aircraft to 2000 feet in a 3000 feet MVA; the aircraft was clear of the obstruction on the north side more than 2 3/4 of a mile but the circle is 3 miles.I just need to bring my MVA maps on next time.


Synopsis: I90 Controllers reported that a PA28 aircraft was on a vector below the Minimum vectoring Altitude and less than three miles from the obstruction depicted on the radar display.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CVG.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower CVG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X landed runway 36c with an RVR of 1200.  He was instructed to taxi via D; J and S to the ramp.  The pilot read back the correct instructions.  I then advised him to turn right on N off of S [as] if he was parking on the north ramp.  He again read back the instructions correctly.  Other aircraft were cleared to land and given instructions.  Aircraft X then asked if he was cleared to cross runway 27.  I repeated his taxi instructions and then realized he had missed his turn onto taxiway J.  I then turned him on runway 27 and gave him instructions to the ramp.  I knew vehicles were on the runway 27 doing sweeping.  They were using 3 different call signs and I checked with my scratch pad to make sure of the 2 remaining call signs because 1 vehicle had exited.  As I was getting ready to advise the vehicles one keyed up and said I had an aircraft on the runway.  I advised he was using it to taxi to the ramp.  A vehicle said he drove into the grass to clear the runway.  Upon further review they stated he was taxiing very fast and estimated about 50mph.  I advised the FLM of the situation.My recommendation would be that when multiple vehicles are on a runway give me just one call sign to communicate with.  If one leaves and another call sign has to be used so be it.  I spent too much time making sure my notes were correct instead of controlling the situation.  When snow removal is in progress this is almost exclusively how it is done.




Synopsis: CVG Local Controller reports of a pilot missing his turn-out off the runway. Controller instructs pilot to taxi on parallel runway where sweepers were working. Before Controller could advise the vehicles; a Sweeper calls the Tower to alert him of an aircraft on the runway.