elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called wanting a frequency to file a VFR OTP flight plan.  I identified the aircraft and asked if he could maintain his own terrain and obstruction avoidance through 025.  He stated that he could; so I issued the clearance.  He reported on top at 014 which was below a layer that had been giving VFR pilots trouble.  I was concerned about the aircraft being on top so far below the MIA that I restated the clearance and the aircraft started to climb. I was busy so I put in a VFR on top flight plan and then did other tasks.  Soon after; Aircraft X declared an emergency and stated that he was turning to land at ZZZ.  I obtained the emergency info and issued distance and direction to the airport.  He got the airport in sight and I gave him a phone number to call so we could know he arrived safely. Later; I realized that I treated him like a VFR aircraft.  I never issued him an altitude to maintain nor did I clear him for a visual approach.  These are things I would do with any other aircraft.  I assume I made this mistake because I never updated the data block to show VFR/OTP and the VFR in the data block just led me down the wrong path.  The aircraft landed safely.I could tell that I was getting behind so I should have asked for help.  Also; I would update the data block immediately or if I had help I would use the template.




Synopsis: Controller describes a situation where the aircraft is VFR on top and declares an emergency.  The aircraft is never given an altitude to maintain or a clearance for a visual approach to the airport.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A109 All Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Courtesy Call by FSDO
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A rotorcraft was in a all metal hanger with all doors closed except one with a 5 ft. walk through space. The aircraft was undergoing a FAR part 91. 411 413 static & transponder 24 month test. The aircraft is also ADS-B (aircraft dependent surveillance broadcast) equipped with a Lynx NGT9000 plus transponder (ads-b in and out). We had performed this test on numerous aircraft in the past in the same location within the building to contain the transponder altitude signal as the test aircraft altimeter system was raised to perform the required testing. No problems with outside aircraft either in the pattern for the airport or overflying the area were ever noted or reported. In the time period between the last aircraft test and this one; the airport had installed an additional ADS-B surveillance radar site. No notification was sent to any operators and we were not informed by the administrator. During the 91.411 / 413 testing; the new radar equipment received the ADS-B data and it was routed into the national airspace system automaticaly. The next day; we received a call from our FSDO (Flight Standards District Office) concerning a possible deviation by a commercial air carrier to a traffic conflict alert generated by the ADS-B system. The conditions were VFR but ATC advised the carrier of the presence of the test aircraft even though it was on the ground in a metal hanger.There should be a provision ; either through a phone contact with ATC to provide a ' test ' window for performing this type of aircraft maintenance with the registration number being posted on the ads-b data as an aircraft under test or other nomenclature. Possibly a software change to allow a maintenance function to be displayed through the ADS-B broadcast that would alert other aircraft that this particular ADS-B report is in fact not an airborne aircraft. Due to the sensitivity of these airport surveilance radars; it was found by phone calls to other operators; that this is a problem that is recurring around the country. The ramp test equipment has provisions to contain the transponder signal; but the effect of RF (Radio Frequency) leakage is not guaranteed.




Synopsis: Maintenance Inspector reported that a Radio Frequency leakage occurred during maintenance ADS-B ground test.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On departure; [we] received [an] UNABLE RNP EICAS message. [We] believed [the message] to have been directly related to [a] local 5G NOTAM. Due to ATC informing us of [a] previous departure receiving effects of 5G-related malfunctions; [we] strongly believe this to be related to 5G near PDX. 5G near airports is a safety issue affecting automation and navigation.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving an UNABLE RNP EICAS message; which they attributed it to be due to 5G.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: PMC; Performance/Thrust Management Computer
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The ACARS runway data program is fully authorized as a stand alone source for performance data. Per our Flight Manual: 'RWY this is the only mandatory entry' and '...runway and performance takeoff limits are based on the latest sequence report from the National Weather Service. During training on our new flight planning program the impression was given that the ACARS takeoff data was foolproof. Events have shown this not to be true. [On a recent departure] ATIS provided: Winds 35017; visibility 10 SM; temperature/dew point 26/11; altimeter 29.93. Takeoff Data was requested. The takeoff data provided by ACARS was based on: TEMP 30C ALT 29.74 WIND 312/10. I would not have noticed this had it not been brought to my attention by the First Officer. The correct ATIS data was entered into the performance request and there were significant changes to the V speeds. While the incorrect data was a failure in the 'safe direction' one must assume; based on this occurrence that it could also occur on a short runway with a heavy weight aircraft and with the takeoff data based on a cooler temperature and higher altimeter. There is a serious potential for an accident caused by such an error in takeoff performance.




Synopsis: An A319 flight crew discovered that the takeoff performance data provided by the company's new flight planning/dispatch program was not based on current meteorlogical information. The reporter believes discrepancies such as this; if common; could be hazardous.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While being vectored for an ILS approach we experienced a moderate airframe vibration accompanied by a loud popping similar to a compressor stall. With no adverse indications on the engine instruments; I disconnected the autopilot and autothrottles. At that point; thrust was still symmetrical and no indications on the engine instruments; but high airframe vibration; especially in the elevators. Within a few seconds; the Number 2 Engine N1 began to decay rapidly but with no increase in EGT. I closed the Number 2 Thrust Lever to determine if this was just a compressor stall or something worse. With the thrust lever closed; the high airframe vibration continued along with the loud rapid popping sound.At this point we determined this was a severe damage situation. The flight crew performed memory and QRH Checklist for Engine Fire/Severe Damage/Separation/Seizure. There was never any indication of increased EGT or fire and the vibration gauge never went above 0.1. We declared an emergency with ATC and requested ARFF equipment. Because the flight was full; Company Captain was on the cockpit jumpseat and was a great resource; handling all communications with the cabin by making PAs to the passengers and relaying commands to the flight attendants to prepare the cabin.After landing I stopped the aircraft on the runway; made a PA to the cabin; and established communications with the ARFF crew who advised no fire or smoke from the Number 2 Engine and then followed us into gate. Post-flight inspection revealed no visible damage to the fan; however; the fan was locked and would not rotate.


Second narrative: N1 below flight idle; no abnormal VIB; EGT; overheat; or fire indications. ENG anti-ice was on; wing anti-ice had been selected for a short period prior to the event (nine degrees C TAT).


Synopsis: A B737-NG flight crew; while being vectored for approach and landing in IMC; performed an inflight shutdown of the right engine due to aggravated compressor stalls; declared an emergency and landed safely. Postflight inspection determined the compressor fan was jammed and could not be rotated.
Date: 201809
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While bringing in [an] E170 [to the] gate; [the] Captain started pointing at me and I then noticed [the] heel of my boot getting caught under jet bridge. Aircraft was moving and so was the jet bridge. Then; I pulled my foot away and signaled the jet bridge driver to stop. The Captain slammed the brakes on the aircraft as well. Once the jet bridge stopped; I continued to marshal the aircraft into the gate and the jet bridge began to move again and aircraft was still moving coming to a stop at the appropriate line marking. [Jet bridge driver] was given the signal to stop for the second time because aircraft was still moving and there [were no] chocks in place at the nose gear when she started to move the jet bridge after being told to stop. Once the chocks were at the nose gear; [the] jet bridge began to approach aircraft. Once the jet bridge was in place; I went upstairs to notify her that she almost ran me over with the jet bridge. She stated 'I thought I saw you; my supervisor advised to me that it's okay to come [up] to the aircraft without being cleared if we are comfortable' Then I told her 'you are not to bring the jet bridge to the aircraft until nose gear is chocked.' And she still walked off saying [that's] what she was told by her supervisor. Then; I contacted my supervisor. Also; the gate has limited space and [an E170] stops on the same line as an 737 and that's why when marshaling planes in; you have to move off to the right so that the Captain can clearly see you to continue taxiing into the gate.




Synopsis: Ramp agent reported the jet bridge was being moved into position before the aircraft was parked; placing the agent in a dangerous position.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying on an IFR flight plan from to ZZZ1 at 4;000 feet the Controller contacted me and asked for my altitude. I responded that I was at 4;000 feet and he told me he showed me at 6;600. We had a discussion that resulted in him asking me to turn off the altitude transmitting feature on the GPS. I attempted to do so but was unable and called back to ask about the weather at ZZZ. When I learned I could get in without having to shoot an approach I asked to be vectored and stated that I was not declaring an emergency at the time. I was cleared direct and informed he would call ahead to advise of the situation. I was unable to acknowledge as my Garmin 650 would not transmit; nor would the Narco that's our COMM2. I squawked 7600 and hit IDENT. I was able to hear the controller trying to raise me but couldn't respond. The GPS screen went black about a minute later so I decided to descend to get below the clouds. I continued towards ZZZ with no electronics. I next connected my cell phone to the blue tooth on my headset and called my father who is also a private pilot and asked him to telephone the Tower; tell them I'm requesting priority and that I will be landing on Runway 23 in about 15 minutes and that I was experiencing an electrical failure. I noticed electrical sparks coming from under the co-pilot side of the panel when I was about 2 miles out so I killed the master power and the alternator immediately. My landing was largely uneventful and actually better than I was expecting; given the conditions.




Synopsis: Pilot reported loss of all avionics systems and sparks visible under the copilots panel after turning off the altitude reporting feature of the GPS system; resulting in a diversion an immediate landing.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: DJI Mavic Air 2
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Hovering (UAS)
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Reporter function: Remote PIC (UAS); Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Procedure; Software and Automation; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: UAS was being flown for photographing the sunset under section 44807 for recreational use. The app used for controlling UAS and verifying an appropriate flying location was the DJI Fly app. The DJI Fly app has geofencing capabilities and has shown on multiple occasions that certain areas are restricted and will prevent the user from taking off and flying in restricted areas. I did not know at the time that this app does not restrict flying in certain areas that require authorization to fly in. At this particular location the altitude restriction on the app is set to 400 feet; there were several 'altitude zones' and restricted areas nearby that limited altitude and the geofencing software would stop the UAS from entering these areas and I avoided them. While the UAS was around 400ft altitude and 300 feet away; maintaining VLOS; I noticed a vehicle approaching my location. They informed me that they were contacted by Naval Air Station about an unauthorized UAS flying in their airspace and requested that I not fly at this location. The location in question; I found out later is Class D airspace with a grid altitude of 0 feet. The DJI app was in conflict with this information saying it was 400 feet. Following the incident I spoke with the FAA in order to find an appropriate location to fly my UAS and was informed about completing TRUST training; using the B4UFly app; and not relying on geofencing from the DJI Fly app.




Synopsis: Recreational/hobby UAS pilot checked and used an app created by the manufacturer of the UAS being flown. The app has several no-fly areas listed but did not list the Class D airspace of a nearby airport. The UAS flew within the Class D airspace without proper authorization.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This happened a few weeks ago and has been bothering me ever since. Just prior to push my lead Flight Attendant came up and said she was uncomfortable with a very large passenger seated in the exit row. He said he was 'willing and able' to assist in an EVAC. However in the FA'S professional opinion this person was so large she questioned whether he was really 'able' to assist and asked if he could be moved. I contacted OPS and a CS Supervisor came down and said we cannot move passenger if they say 'willing and able.' I next contacted the [Chief Pilot]; he said he had not had this before and put me on hold to get the company opinion. After a bit he came back and said we could not move this person just for being large. We departed. On arrival I saw this passenger deplaning; in my estimation he was between 500-600 lbs. He had to come down the aisle sideways to fit between the seats; stopping to catch his breath every few seats. In my professional opinion there was no way he should have been given an exit row seat. There is legal and then there is common sense safety. For future reference where do we draw the line on someone so large it may cause issues were there to be an evacuation. This evaluation of 'able' to assist should be addressed at the gate prior to boarding the aircraft.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported concern about a passenger of size sitting in the emergency exit row who had accepted being willing and able to assist in an emergency.