elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I thought we had ironed out the cockpit oxygen bottle valve issues but they must still be around. Today during our preflight we both just happened to initiate the Cockpit Oxygen Prefight at exactly the same instant. Looking at the gage during the test the pressure dropped from 1300 PSI to 150 PSI. Realizing we were doing the test simultaneously we re-attempted it individually. This time the pressure dropped slightly more than 100 PSI. Referencing the test procedure in the FOM (Flight Operations Manual) I called Maintenance out to check the valve. The limit if you want to interpret it as such is a decrease of more than 100 PSI which we barely had. Maintenance reported that the valve was not fully opened. He opened it all the way and we tested each of our systems successfully. We then retested simultaneously and as in the individual tests there was no pressure drop at all. So to recap; we might have missed a partially open valve as our 'individual' tests displayed only slightly greater than a 100 PSI drop. However; I believe that had we had explosive depressurization at FL380 and were both trying to breath at the same time (simultaneous test at sea level) we would not have been able to breathe let alone survive with a T.U.C. of less than 20 seconds.I believe we should expand our test procedures to include the following: 'In the event of a pressure drop of approximately 100 PSI during the oxygen test; perform a simultaneous test of both pilots oxygen. If this results in a rapid change in pressure greater than 100 PSI make a logbook entry and inform Maintenance.' Maintenance should also increase our mechanics awareness of the hazard to the flight by not confirming that the valve is fully open. Perhaps this should be a maintenance item that requires a post installation sign off by a different individual than the mechanic who installed the new bottle.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports noting a large pressure drop during a simultaneous test of the oxygen system; although the drop is normal when one system is tested at a time. Maintenance is called and the supply valve is found to be not fully open.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHS.Airport, SC
Aircraft: RV-7
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E CHS
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHS
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While working East RADAR; West RADAR handed off the R7 to me at 7;000 FT. I gave the R7 the altimeter southwest of the field. The CRJ7 departed Runway 15 heading northeast bound. The R7 tagged dropped over the main bang. On initial call I climbed the CRJ7 to 10;000 and handed him off to JAX Center. The R7 popped-up back on RADAR; I had enough time to past traffic or turn the R7. The aircraft didn't answer me until after the fourth or fifth call. The new departures off the airport turns are to close to the airport especially when we consistently lose aircraft over the main bang.




Synopsis: Distracted by an aircraft target loss; a CHS Controller described an apparent conflict event claiming a new departure procedure turns aircraft over the RADAR main bang causing aircraft targets to disappear.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a CPDLC capable aircraft. Requested & received a revised departure clearance. I accepted the clearance before really thinking it through & discussing with the captain.Original filed clearance: KAUS SAYBR1 SAYBR..CHEVE..GGG..ELD..[Route to Destination].Revised clearance received via CPDLC: Cleared to ELD via route clearance. FREE TEXT. ILEXY1.JESSO. CLIMB ON TOWER ASSIGNED HEADING. THIS IS A REVISED CLEARANCE..AFTER ELD CLEARED TO [Destination] Airport as filed. MAINTAIN 4000FT. EXPECT FL390 10 MIN AFT DPI called clearance delivery to confirm whether we were cleared from JESSO direct ELD. Clearance delivery said we were cleared JESSO direct LFK direct ELD. This was not in our CPDLC free text clearance. We loaded that route in the FMC & briefed it in our departure briefing.After takeoff; I contacted AUS departure control & told them we were on tower assigned heading of 010 degrees. AUS departure then cleared us direct to point MUNCH; which is on the SAYBR1 departure (original filed route; but not the revised route). I then stated we were cleared the ILEXY1 departure from clearance delivery. AUS departure then cleared us direct to point ILEXY.We received an incomplete and/or incorrect clearance via CPDLC. Corrected by AUS Clearance Delivery. AUS Departure control expected us on a different SID than cleared by the revised clearance received via CPDLC & voice contact with AUS Clearance Delivery.I should have discussed the clearance with the CA prior to accepting/rejecting it via CPDLC. After discussing; we agreed we should have rejected the clearance & called them or free text our concerns; which we eventually did.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported a track deviation resulted when there was confusion regarding a clearance received via CPDLC.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Passenger
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While traveling on board the Flight AABC I witnessed FAs setting up the break curtain in the beginning of the coach cabin. It was odd to me that the curtain would be erected given the difficulty of putting the curtain up and taking it down. My concern is mainly about the safety and security of the flight. I cannot attest to the number of people taking breaks; but breaks were taken and this has to stop. If something has changed and they are entitled to breaks then I am not aware and need to find out whether breaks are to be taken. I had not flown in a few months due to COVID-19; but knew something was not quite right with the curtain issue. Insult to injury; there were numerous stand by passengers/employees onboard that may have witnessed this; let alone regular passengers curious as to why this curtain was erected. Again my concern is about safety and security. I know for a fact that cabin coverage would have been an issue because there were only X flight attendants if I'm not mistaken working the flight that night. Again these people need to be spoken to in regards to this matter because this could have easily turned into a catastrophic event if someone got sick and needed assistance; or worse a terrorist event. I am concerned and this again needs to be addressed immediately. Why were these flight attendants so confident that they could take a break in full view of passengers?




Synopsis: Passenger reported the flight attendants erected a curtain in the coach cabin as a rest area during flight. Passenger expressed safety and security concerns with this incident.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HQZ.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF HQZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Ramp
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Following startup after an overnight stay being unfamiliar with the small airport; I referenced the Jeppesen runway diagram and self-announced my taxi intentions to Runway 36 using the indicated CTAF frequency.  I began my taxi and was contacted by Tower Controller 'Aircraft taxiing; hold your position. This is a Tower Controlled field.'  I immediately complied. Then looked again at the chart and noticed my error.  The Tower was part time operation and 'CTAF' was in larger print. I did not see that small print 'Tower'.  Fortunately; I had not crossed from ramp onto a taxiway.  There was a single engine small aircraft taxiing left to right at about 250 feet to my left.  Had I entered the taxiway; he may have had to stop for me.  There was no chance of collision; only confusion caused by my movement towards the taxiway.  No light gun signals were visible as I was not facing the Tower.I am not sure whether the Tower was open upon our arrival the previous day.  I think our operational tempo with numerous legs per day to smaller airports with rapid turns contributed to my mistake.  I will look more closely at the chart details next time; review taxi diagrams; NOTAMs; and slow down.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported not realizing the field was Tower controlled and almost entered a taxiway without clearance.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Mustang (C510)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: Tower SAT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Ground control instructed me to back taxi on closed runway 04 to intersecting active runway 31L. Arriving at runway 31L I became confused because of multiple hold short lines on 2 perpendicular taxiways G and N intersecting the 2 perpendicular runways 04/31L. There are 6 hold short lines in near proximity on the taxiways and runways at these intersections. The painted lines on both runways are weathered and partially obscured with rubber tire marks. I mis-interpreted the hold short line on runway 04 to runway 31L. I turned on to active runway 31L to stop at the hold short line for runway 04. I checked in with the tower. Then I told tower I thought I was on runway 31L. The response was to hold short. Soon I was cleared for takeoff.Upon departure I was instructed to call either of 2 phone numbers for possible pilot deviation. I've called both numbers 5 days in a row with no answer and no return phone call. I have since studied aerial photos and airport diagrams. I now see my error of mistaking which hold short line was intended for which runway. Study airport diagram better and request a progressive taxi from ground control at unfamiliar airports.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported crossing runway hold short line due to confusing instructions and unclear signage at SAT.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: 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 Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight at FL360 noticed smoke in cockpit. Requested a divert to [nearby suitable airport]. ATC gave us priority handling. Once established direct; First Officer flying; and a descent initiated an emergency was declared. ATC was helpful. No ECAM indications of smoke. Flew an ILS with radar vectors with Captain taking over control of airplane at approximately 13;000 FT. On rollout ECAM warning: Avionics Smoke appeared; then extinguished.  Cleared the runway; stopped aircraft; and fire trucks quickly surrounded aircraft. Smoke dissipated. Did not egress aircraft. After inspection inside and out by Fire Department we completely depowered airplane.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported noticing smoke in the cockpit; prompting a divert to a nearby airport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was descending into Boise on the PARMO3 arrival. The arrival; when landing east; crosses JIMMI at 5000 ft. We have two busy satellite airports west of Boise where traffic is consistently crossing the final close to JIMMI between 4000 ft. and 6000 ft. These VFR aircraft off of the satellite airports do not always call Approach Control and skirt around the class C airspace. This event happened at the time previously stated between Aircraft X and an unknown VFR aircraft that appeared to be descending into one of these satellite airports. I issued traffic to Aircraft X on the unknown VFR target; but they did not see them. Anticipating merging target procedures and to positively control the situation; I vectored Aircraft X into the adjacent Controller's airspace after performing the necessary coordination. This continues to be a systemic problem and action should be taken to avoid unnecessary risks into the NAS.I recommend that we make a Class C extension that extends out to 20 DME from 4500 ft.-6900 ft. This would force VFR aircraft that transition the area to contact Approach Control for clearance through this critical airspace while leaving enough ground clearance to allow aircraft who would like to fly under the airspace and not have to talk to Approach Control the ability to do so.We have had multiple pilot outreach programs to ask pilots from these satellite airports to call us up when they are going to go through that airspace above 4500 ft. They continue to do so; and; in several cases just turn their transponder off creating a further hazard to safety.




Synopsis: BOI Approach Controller reported they had to vector an aircraft off their published approach course due to converging unidentified VFR traffic.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X had just landed on Runway 30; and was on roll-out at taxi speed. I told the pilot to contact ground control when clear of the runway. He was approaching taxiway W6; but just before W6 (maybe 500 ft. before) is an 'exit' that was used as a temporary taxiway a couple years ago when doing taxiway construction. The pilot accidentally turned onto this closed taxiway; Taxiway Z; and contacted Ground Control. I noticed this and told ground that it was his runway until Aircraft X was clear at an open taxiway. The pilot then turned around on closed Taxiway Z; taxied back onto the runway without any coordination with ground control and taxied to Taxiway W6; the open taxiway. Taxiway Z has an 'X' painted on it; but is difficult to see in wet conditions; which we had.This is the second time in about 4 months that I've had an aircraft exit on the closed taxiway; and have had numerous other times that an aircraft has come to almost a complete stop to turn and then straighten back out on the runway to exit at the next (open) taxiway. This disruption to the flow of aircraft on our main runway is unpredictable and dangerous. There are some trouble spots on the airport that the Port of Oakland has painted Green; to clearly differentiate between taxiway and non-movement area. This closed taxiway needs to be painted green at a minimum; and better yet; to be removed altogether and restored to its natural; non-paved status.




Synopsis: OAK Tower Controller reported an aircraft turned off the runway onto a closed taxiway. Reporter stated this has happened before and the exit needs to be repainted.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: J3 Cub
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon landing a gust lifted my left wing causing a ground loop. Minimal damage to the left wing and left aieron. I was a bit too slow on approach.




Synopsis: Cub Crafter Pilot reported a gust on landing resulted in loss of control and ground loop.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Total failure of both cabin auto controllers resulting in loss of cabin pressure at a cruise altitude of 38;000 ft. As the aircraft was climbing through 37;500 ft going to a cruise altitude of FL380 we experienced a total failure of both cabin auto controllers. This was accompanied by the cabin altitude warning EICAS and buzzer and both cabin auto 1 and 2 controllers EICAS warning messages. We both looked at the cabin and it was climbing through around 13;000 ft. We both immediately got on O2 with the mask at 100% and emergency. Once going on O2 we [advised] ATC and diverted while descending the aircraft to a safe attitude of 9000 ft and going through the appropriate checklist. Aircraft was diverted and landed back safely. Very scary event since it was very insidious and snuck up on us quickly with no notice until the cabin attitude warning went off.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported losing all cabin pressure while in cruise.