elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Twin Turboprop or Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was in a descent to FL220 and turned 10 degrees right for departure traffic coming out the departure gate. I advised aircraft X that there would be a delay at FL220 for enroute traffic. While in the descent; aircraft X declared an emergency and requested lower. I advised aircraft X that I could not give a clearance for lower because of a King Air. Position of the King Air was approximately 2 to 3 miles southeast of aircraft X. I asked aircraft X to verify he had declared an emergency because the radios where not very clear. He affirmed; I then called traffic to aircraft X (the King Air) and advise when leaving FL200; aircraft X relayed that they were already out of FL190.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event when a military aircraft with an emergency descended prior to receiving ATC clearance.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working Local Assist 2. We were busy with departures; and The TM (Traffic Manager) passed a strip for a SMO departure (Aircraft Y). After coordinating with the Malibu Sector I coordinated with SMO and gave them a one minute heads-up; Aircraft X started his takeoff roll and at the appropriate point I released the SMO departure. The SMO departure came off and we ended up with 2.75 between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y.I released the SMO departure where I always do; but Aircraft Y must have jumped on it as he got airborne and Aircraft X must have been slow on his climb. I can give a little more room; but we had three more departures off of SMO after Aircraft Y; and I released them at the same point and the separation was adequate.




Synopsis: LAX Tower Controller reported of a loss of separation when a SMO departure was too close to an LAX departure.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
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; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft operating at flight level 290 and Mach 0.68 was not coordinated by Piarco Center to NY Center. Aircraft entered the NY/Piarco Boundary at 18N050W without coordination. The flight was not protected by Ocean21 non radar because coordination wasn't completed. This became aware to me at the sector when receiving a position report over 18N050W without any flight plan on the aircraft. After calling Piarco Center; working with another Controller at NY; and commercial radio we located the flights current position; altitude and speed. The Carrier was verified inside of our airspace; and that Piarco Center had never coordinated the flight. No loss of separation occurred. Require Piarco ATC to get their automated AIDC system up and running; and become on line with ZNY. With automated ABI messages and the automated passing of flight plans this would never happen. ZNY could receive every flight plan and receive current aircraft data through the same method as we do with Santa Maria ATC (to the east of NY Airspace). Their system needs to get turned on; there is no reason in this day and age why automation; cannot be accomplished between the two facilities. It absolutely promotes a safer operation; and more efficient operation lowering controller workload; and increasing the flying public's safety.




Synopsis: Reporter did not receive flight progress or handoff from a Foreign Center; causing an airspace violation.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Pulling up to the gate lead-in line there was no Ground personnel to park us so the Captain set the brake and waited for someone to marshal us in. One individual eventually came over. He had a safety vest on to be on the ramp but no Company uniform. As he marshalled us in; he was continually looking over to the other carrier's gate next door as if he was looking for help. We stopped the aircraft when he said to stop but noticed the jetway was out of position. We thought it might be because we were in a larger aircraft than expected. We asked the Agent what the deal was with the Ground Crew and what was wrong with the jetway. She said the individual that guided us in was not even authorized to park us and that he actually parked us on another type of aircraft's line versus our aircraft's stop line. She went on to say that they are not real Company Employees on the ramp; and that they have a great deal on problems with them. She also added that they have filed several reports with the Company but have not seen any change. Upon pushback; I noticed the Captain had to ask several times to get the proper response from the Ground Crew to ensure everything was done and that we were on the same page about the pushback. During the pushback; the Captain set the brakes and told me to start the number one motor. That's when we both noticed that the Ground Crew disconnected the headset and tow bar and left without being cleared off by the Captain. I know both of the occurrences are minor but could have been made worse if we had any kind of issue with parking or starting without the proper support from the Ground Crew.I think the Company needs Company Employees trained in Company procedures dealing with our aircraft and Crews. I think if it is a Company Station there should be Company on the ramp to handle our aircraft. So we; as Crew Members; know that the people in and around our aircraft are trained properly and know what to do if any issues arise while we are on the ground.




Synopsis: A pilot reported a non-qualified; non-Company person marshaled his aircraft into a DCA gate; stopped the aircraft at an incorrect spot; and on departure pushback left the aircraft without signaling.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B787-1000
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Technician
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: MEL; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was scheduled for departure. But flight crew reported a maintenance message 'NLG UP SOL' prior to departure. While trouble shooting this message; The AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) tells you to cycle the gear handle to clear the message. We decided due to A/C fully loaded with passengers on board it would be best to place this item on MEL.While searching MEL REF # 32-31-X we also encounter the same situation. Mel # 32-31-X procedure is to follow AMM 32-31-XX. Under this procedure you have to verify which system is at fault. This procedure has you to cycle the gear handle. Due to this task; we had to get all passengers to deplane. The problem we encountered; No where in the AMM; GMM; or any manual were we able to find a procedure that allowed the gear handle to be cycled while passengers onboard. We were also asked by a supervisor if we can cycle the gear handle even though passengers were onboard. This supervisor was very persuasive and pushed the technicians to cycle the gear handle. We stood our ground and refused to cycle the gear handle while passengers on board.We have to address this MEL and update our manuals and procedures when we have passengers onboard. It is very critical that we have this in writing. Cycling the gear handle while passengers onboard only increases the risk of injuries.




Synopsis: Captain reported he and technicians refused to sign an aircraft as airworthy until MEL procedures were accomplished. The MEL required cycling of the landing gear control handle; which they refused to do until the passengers were deplaned.
Date: 202103
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: In the VFR sectional chart issued Feb 25; 2021; the Danville VOR (DNV) has the wrong frequency listed. It should be 111.0. It is listed here as 110.0; which is the frequency for a nearby VOR CMI. I noticed while flight planning my student solo cross country flight.It seems plausible a NAVAID could be mistakenly tuned to the nearby one and be a safety factor. Hope it's fixed in the next issue.




Synopsis: GA student pilot reported the wrong frequency is listed on the VFR sectional chart for the Danville (DNV) VOR.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We pre-diverted to ZZZ before leaving ZZZ2 because ZZZ1 weather was below minimums to dispatch. At the top of descent; Captain flying; the Captain's airspeed started to roll back and the auto throttles started to move forward as the aircraft started down. We subsequently received 'IAS disagree' annunciations. Captain performed the memory items for airspeed unreliable and we leveled out. As a crew we determined that the FO (First Officer) and standby airspeed were matched; and asked ATC to confirm our ground speed because the wind readout seemed erroneous. We maintained our filed route. We advised ATC; maintained our filed route and continued to ZZZ. ZZZ1 was not an option with the 1/16 mile reported fog. We did not feel comfortable returning to ZZZ2 with the severity of the situation; not knowing if the FO's side would possibly fail. We had to manage the QRH; start down; [and] change the approach from the RNP to the LDA as we would have 1 FD for the approach. While continuing the descent the Captain's airspeed bled to 45 kts. and the airplane cycled through its aural warnings but we never received the stick shaker. While on the arrival and approach the weather was fluctuating from 10SM to 1 3/4 due to a fog bank. The rapidly changing weather conditions were not helpful but we prepared for a possible go around by briefing the go around pitch and power settings. We were able to pick up the field about 6 miles out and landed uneventfully with the FO flying.We have practiced this scenario in the simulator [which] provided valuable experience to deal with the scenario in real life.


Second narrative: We experienced a failure of the Captain's airspeed indicator. We had begun our descent; with the Captain flying; when we both got 'Unreliable Airspeed' annunciations. We complied with the memory items of the QRC but did not set a pitch power setting as we knew the aircraft was at a safe altitude and airspeed. We quickly determined that the FO (First Officer) and standby airspeed indicators were matched up; and confirmed that our ground speed matched what ATC was reading. I would say the training in this very scenario in the simulator was very helpful to practice for the rare chance that it happens in real life.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported a safe landing following the failure of the Captain's airspeed indicator.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I missed the fix to hold then turned back to VMC and climbed without a clearance to maintain VMC. I was assigned 11;000 FT; but climbed to 13;000 FT.




Synopsis: Bonanza 35 pilot reports over flying an assigned holding fix then turning and climbing to 13;000 FT to remain in VMC; without clearance to do so.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ODO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was entering into the traffic pattern. I radioed left base without pulling the lever down for landing gear down. I landed with gear up. I managed to have only minor damage to the fuselage. A certified mechanic will fix the incurred damages.




Synopsis: C182RG pilot reported distraction and failure to follow the landing checklist resulted in a gear up landing and damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F70.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: CTAF F70
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Entering left downwind on the 45 degree for Runway 18 I heard a helicopter radio call using Runway 18 in right pattern. Mid downwind I heard a Cessna on long final Runway 18. Late downwind stabilized in pattern configuration; I spotted the landing Cessna on late final. A few seconds later spotted helicopter on right base for Runway 18 with proper radio calls. I made my radio calls entering the 45; stabilized on left downwind Runway 18 and late downwind Runway 18. Just after the Cessna touched down I heard a Cherokee radio call entering Runway 18 for takeoff. I announced turning left base Runway 18 when I saw the Cherokee takeoff. At this point the helicopter looked like it was going to land on Runway 18 as announced. When I turned final the helicopter looked like it was still hovering a little left of the runway and above my altitude. I was preparing for a go around; but was not sure of the helicopter's intentions as I didn't hear any further radio calls after the right base call and didn't want to conflict in his flight path. I radioed asking 'helicopter are you landing'? By now my airplane was much lower than the helicopter and a second voice immediately replied they were doing a go around. He safely and in a timely manner executed a go around and I completed a normal landing. The helicopter radioed me asking for my tail number which I gave; but failed to get his tail number as I expected him to come talk to me while I waited for him on the ramp about the incident. I was expecting an 18 landing for a helicopter to be on the 18 end of the taxiway as is the normal procedure [at nearby airports].




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported operations at uncontrolled field resulted in a near miss between a fixed wing and rotor aircraft.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon block in company informed us that we had Lithium [Ion] batteries in position 4 left when our paper work had then in position one. We said we would file a NASA report on the wrong position of the lithium batteries. Cause: Paper worked filled out wrong. Suggestions: Slow down on preparing paper work.


Second narrative: [Dispatch] Manager advised me; after touchdown; that the ramp had scanned a lithium battery to be loaded into the [Dangerous Goods] container in position 1; but it ended up in position 4L. I sent an ACARS to the crew as they were taxiing to the gate asking them to call me when they blocked in. Captain called me and I relayed the information to him. I had taken over this flight from the swing shift dispatcher.


Synopsis: Airline Dispatcher reported notifying flight crew during destination arrival of Dangerous Goods documentation errors.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We were departing DFW through a PDC (pre departure clearance) request. The PDC showed our filed flight plan SID (DALL2) and routing. We entered the DALL2 SID into our FMS. We then taxied to the assigned runway 35L. Upon departure we were directed to go to a fix which was not on the DALL2 departure. We informed departure control that we did not have the fix on the DALL2 SID. The controller then gave us a heading; which we complied with; and handed us off to another controller. We confirmed to the second controller that we were on the DALL2 SID. The second departure controller directed us to fly several vectors; all of which we complied with; and he then cleared us to SWB; our expected waypoint. The balance of the flight continued normally.We subsequently learned that the PDC also showed the MRSSH1 SID. I believe that having two SIDs on the PDC is a source of confusion and a safety issue. We have never had two SIDs on a PDC clearance previously.


Second narrative: Upon receiving our Pre Departure Clearance (PDC) it contained our filed flight plan and SID. It also contained another SID. This caused some confusion upon departure.I think the PDC format is unclear and confusing.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported about confusion when departing the airport. Their PDC had two SIDs and the crew was flying one and controllers were issuing headings. The pilots are concerned that the PDC format is unclear.