elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: B737-900
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was in-trail of a B737-900 who had just gone around. About a 2.5 mile final; I observed Aircraft X climbing out of 1200 feet and they stated they were going around for a wind shear alert on board the aircraft. I gave standard missed approach procedure and shipped them to departure control. I advised the next three or four arrivals and the single departure I had about the report and all others stated the wind was calm and they had no encounter.  When Aircraft X came back around; I explained to them that they were behind a B737-900 that had gone around; and I suspected that they had encountered wake turbulence from this aircraft; as we have heard the newer generation of aircraft can have quite a nasty wake turbulence generated from the efficient wing. They acknowledged and landing having encountered no wind at all on final.I could only recommend that when I advised them the preceding arrival went around; I would have reiterated that it was a B737-900; however; this may have meant not a thing to the pilot upon receipt. I just don't know what information they are being provided regarding aircraft wake anymore.




Synopsis: An aircraft initiated a go-around due to a wind shear alert in the cockpit. The reporter thinks it may have been Wake Turbulence generated by a preceding B737-900.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CXP.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF CXP
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had made radio calls for taxi and to take Runway 09 while monitoring the CTAF frequency. When I began my ground roll I noticed another aircraft take the opposite end of the runway and begin to accelerate toward me. I immediately aborted my takeoff roll and notified over the airways that I was doing so and the other aircraft continued to depart the opposing Runway 27 and took off over me. They never made a single radio call until I addressed them directly and announced that I was aborting my takeoff. Then they stated they couldn't hear myself or the other aircraft that were in the traffic pattern. They stated that the transmissions were coming through broken. I believe to avoid these kinds of situations everyone should make radio transmissions before entering a runway and actively monitor the com frequency while maneuvering on or around any airport.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported critical ground conflict with another aircraft making opposite direction takeoff.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The CRJ operations is getting dangerous. This is due to too many MELS. In just four trips; I have reached my limit as a pilot to operate safely fly. An example is on one flight had seven MELs. Have aircraft in better condition.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported being concerned about flying aircraft with too many MELs open.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the ground in ZZZZ the loadmaster was made aware that a small box of Hazmat was found in the bulk cargo bin by the off loading crew in ZZZZ. Paperwork from an earlier leg; ZZZ-ZZZZ1; showed that the box should have been offloaded in ZZZZ1; the day prior. As a result we; unknowingly; transported Hazmat without the required paperwork. The item was removed from the aircraft.




Synopsis: Ramp personnel reported finding undocumented Hazmat in cargo compartment which had been mistakenly transported.
Date: 201604
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were enroute to EAGUL intersection at FL360 and had just briefed the EAGUL STAR and visual approach to PHX runway 8 when we overheard a couple of other flights noting anomalies with their GPS systems. These reports seemed to be connected with NOTAMs and RAIM notices about GPS outages near El Paso and Hector VORs. Then we began receiving ECAM for GPS2 FAULT and notices for loss and regain of GPS navigation. Nav accuracy seemed good; within 1 mile of known VOR locations. However; we noted persistent; random map shifts of up to 7 miles which lagged and was sometimes consistent with the cycling ECAM messages and notepad advisories. Rather than risk being unable to monitor an RNAV arrival; we chose to seek a less rigorous STAR at the suggestion of ATC. We were flying heading only; under ATC direction for about 10 minutes before they cleared us for the BUNTR STAR which we flew uneventfully. We monitored position and track with manual navigation radio and radial tuning. I looked for but could not find a checklist for the cycling malfunctions indicated by the GPS navigation loss notices in the MCDU scratchpad. We did the procedure anyway. The protocol to be directed to a checklist by a set condition fell short of certainty because of the random; sometimes rapid cycling of the notes themselves. We simply applied judgment that told us to confirm position accuracy and then involve ATC with awareness of our less than ideal navigational condition. There was also no time to coordinate more exotic solutions through dispatch because the descent was upon us by the time we received our new clearance.




Synopsis: A320 Captain experienced GPS signal interference and intermittent outages during arrival to PHX. The interference seemed to be connected with NOTAMs and RAIM (Receiver Autonomous Integrity Monitoring) notices about GPS outages near El Paso.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On climbout vectors and headings were given to routing back [to home field]. On the climb ATC asked another aircraft if they had the DA-40 in sight (me) and the pilot confirmed that he did have the DA-40 in sight as they were approaching from below and behind the direction of flight. During the climb the other plane passed within 200 FT horizontal separation from below causing an evasive left turn to be performed. The pilot of the [the other aircraft] confirmed he had the DA-40 in sight and didn't believe it to be a factor. Although at such a close spacing a simple turn to avoid a bird strike or other situation unforeseen by the pilot could have resulted in a midair collision.




Synopsis: The pilot of a DA40 observed another aircraft pass very close to him; causing him to make an evasive turn. This aircraft had confirmed to ATC that he had the traffic in sight; but still passed at an unusually close distance.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X boarded without his mask over his nose.  I told him nicely to put it over his nose.  He rolled his eyes at me put it on and walked to his seat and defiantly pulled it down again.  Several other members of his party did the same.  I let A [FA] know.  A FA went over and politely but firmly told them of our policy and that mask use over their nose and mouth is a requirement to fly.  They put it on but would slip it down just enough to be questionable.  They were upset with us for asking them to comply.  It was a quick flight from ZZZ-ZZZ1 so we couldn't safely keep going back to check and remind.  They need a good reminder of our policy and that we are just here to keep them and everyone else on board safe. A FA had let the agent know as well before we had finished boarding just in case.Passengers in party need a reminder on our mask policy and agree to adhere to it or not fly until the requirement is not in place.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a group of passengers not wearing face masks during flight.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Piper PA-31 checked in on my frequency; VFR at 17;500 [feet] on a heading immediately directed toward R4001. On initial contact; I informed the pilot of R4001's current ACTIVE status and suggested the pilot to turn immediately either east or west to avoid R4001. I informed the Supervisor of a possible spill out into restricted area. I instructed the pilot to squawk emergency and to continue on a heading away from APG. The pilot appeared to react slowly to my instructions; so I suggested a heading of 090 to keep him out of the restricted area and continued vectoring him out of the area until he exited R4001's depicted boundary. The pilot; by now appeared confused; and began questioning R4001's active status. The pilot kept asking me to confirm whether APG was active since previous Controller had informed him that the area was INACTIVE. I called the ZNY Controller working N25 (MXE) to let him know of the aircraft violating R4001; and to let him know what the pilot reported in regards to R4001's status.  The Controller at N25 (MXE) confirmed to me that he had informed the PA-31 that R4001 was INACTIVE as per his status information board; which indicated R4001 as INACTIVE. I acknowledged the N25 (MXE) Controller and informed him that R4001 was ACTIVE. I recommend a review of the special restricted area activation and deactivation process. The process of changing the status of any restricted area in the near vicinity of our nation's capital or any city in the U.S.A. is a critical aspect to the safety of NAS. Persons responsible for entering changes to these areas cannot afford to make such errors. The DC metro area is known for many restricted areas. The fact that my neighboring Controller received incorrect information about airspace that is active 5 days out of 7 days a week in unacceptable.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described a near airspace infraction when a ZNY Controller had incorrectly advised a pilot of the status of R4001.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was issued beacon code; radar identified and cleared into Bravo via direct Ford Island; direct Navy Marine golf course for Runway 4L. After the 2nd to 4th scan; aircraft disappeared on radar display. Immediate query of aircraft on frequency was positive. I asked the adjacent controller to go to Mosaic display immediately and we both observed the limited data block of the aircraft. Coordination began immediately with Tower for radar handoff. The Tower had to go into Mosaic also to see the aircraft to receive the radar handoff. Previous similar situations have been reported; however these have been outbound aircraft on the Redhill and Freeway departures. Report was submitted to FLM. The chaos this caused could have had negative results with conflicting traffic and other priorities that almost became overlooked while attention was diverted from the operation. All aircraft were handled appropriately; however; I believe my experience and being a Subject Matter Expert on this equipment allowed me to overcome the handicap. The last explanation we have received is a control sheet issued within the past month advising that this is Mode S related.




Synopsis: HCF Controller reported situation where aircraft target disappears unless equipment is in mosaic mode.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: ZZZ has one runway 18/36. I would normally check the NOTAMs soon after I sat down; but having a Radar Assist I relied on him to have done this. ZZZ is in ARTCC airspace and we control the airport. I checked the NOTAMs and notice that about 5 minutes earlier that a NOTAM had been put out that ZZZ 18/36 was closed. I advised that airports sector controller and the supervisor. Soon thereafter; I noticed an old NOTAM showing ZZZ 18/36 closed. It appears their only runway has been closed all day and no one knew about it. This could be very dangerous. If we had an emergency aircraft near ZZZ lose his engines and we suggested this airport and the runway is closed with snow removal equipment on it; it could lead to a disaster. In the past FSS was required to call us. Nowadays we completely rely on controllers reading the NOTAMs which I have documented is rarely done in my area. Quite often the controllers turn the ERIDS (En Route Information Display System) screen away from them so they can't even see if any messages show up. And management lets them get away with this over and over. It is not safe. Today our supervisor called the FBO to try and figure out a way that we could find out important information directly. As I understand it; the FBO did not think he should ever have to call us even if the airport is closed.Either the airport manager; the FBO or FSS should have to call the sector or supervisor of the area to tell them if all their runways or airport is closed.Management should ensure controllers are reading NOTAMs. ARTCC management should be talked to about their management style and safety.




Synopsis: An airport's one runway was closed via NOTAM. A controller noticed the NOTAM and realized no one knew the runway had been closed due to snow.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31T Cheyenne I
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IFR flight plan. Left engine lost torque on takeoff about 300 FT AGL. Feathered engine. All other gauges seemed to be functioning properly (in the green). Climbed to 4;000 FT MSL. Told Center of precautionary shutdown. At first decided to continue to our filed destination; since there was no maintenance at the departure airport. Looked at flight time and saw home airport was only 10 minutes further than the filed destination. Decided to notify ATC that we would divert first to ZZZ where passengers where picked up; then changed to home airport where maintenance could be performed. Tried to do air restart; but torque still was at 0. Seemed to be running at idle & throttle not working. Decided to shutdown again and feathered prop. Continued to home airport. Was quite impressed that we got 185 KTS GS on single-engine. Mechanic has checked engine and it seems throttle cable had broken loose. Crew environment worked very well together. Pilot flying flew airplane; while I diagnosed problems and went through checklists to verify all items were completed. Some may question the decision to continue to home airport. Once options were weighed on maintenance facilities and having to move people; plane; and possibly be stuck for several days; since no visible damage was noted; the decision to continue was made.




Synopsis: A PA-31T engine malfunctioned at 300 FT after takeoff so the engine was feathered but the flight continued to cruise altitude and diverted to the crew's home base where a broken throttle cable was found.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The border Veterinarian at ZZZZ today had a shipment of equine semen selected for physical control. The shipment was; among other things; marked with 'Non-Hazardous' and the AWB (Airways Bill) states 'Non-Hazardous-not restricted.'  Under our physical control; the tank was opened; and the content of liquid nitrogen was measured; even if; from the information we have received; it must be assumed that this is a dry shipper.  Today; in this shipment; 11 cm of liquid Nitrogen has been measured in the tank. As this was supposed to be a dry shipper; no free liquid Nitrogen was expected (or allowed).




Synopsis: Customs personnel reported hazardous shipment arrived incorrectly labeled and transported.