elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
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: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger X; [seat] X1; told D FA that he was continuing to order drinks so that he would not have to keep his mask on.  Reminded passenger more than once to keep mask on when not actively eating or drinking.Passenger should be banned from flying on [airline] for the remainder of mask policy because he purposely and knowing disregarded the mask policy.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that a passenger kept ordering drinks in order to not have to wear a face mask while actively drinking.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] waited for weather to clear before setting off. Flying under cloud layer; VFR and inadvertently violated TFR airspace. Regular commuting route for low weather; flight planned and weather checked along route using Foreflight for iPad; but TFR was not displayed. Monitoring guard frequency I heard a garbled call for an airspace violation with a heading of 090; I was on 270 heading. Reviewed airspace and realized a TFR may be in effect; decided to divert to closest airport. Called the Tower and landed without incident.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reports inadvertently entering a TFR and landing at the nearest airport when a call is heard on guard frequency. An iPad with Foreflight application was used for planning and enroute navigation; but TFR did not appear.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RIC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working The Data position; Controller 1 was being vocal that there was no one on a break. Over and over repeating himself to anyone who would listen/hear him; no one was on a break. I asked if it were required that someone be on a break and he replied no. I thought this was the end of it. A few moments later; I answered an incoming call. During this call; Controller 1 told Controller 2 on TAPPA to combine it with FLTRK. The Specialist Controller 2 did this as he thought Controller 1 was relaying this from me. When my phone call concluded; I noticed and heard via headset; that TAPPA was being combined. I immediately said that I did not want these sectors combined and had it reopened.  Controller 1 stood laughing next to his DEV with a book next to him appearing as though he was giving some instruction while pretending he did not know anything about it while Controller 2 asked him why he said to combine it up. Controller 2 was quite mad about this and called Controller 1 out. It is important to note that while combining and de-combining these sectors; Aircraft X did not receive the service he should have and was vectored through the final at RIC. Controller 1 may have been kidding around with what he said to Controller 2 about combining the sectors up; but I do not find this to be funny at all. Controller 2 seemed quite upset over this. CPC's that were in the room were telling Controller 2 to 'Never believe anything Controller 1 says;' and 'Lesson learned.' The action Controller 1 took in making this kind of decision compromises the integrity and safety of the NAS and is undermining to the authority of the FLM. CIC refresher training.




Synopsis: PCT FLM describes a situation where a CPC tells another Controller to combine a sector to get someone out on a break.  This was against the FLM's wishes.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EYW.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D EYW
ATC / advisory: Tower EYW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft was on the ground at KEYW. The pilot had contacted Tower and received taxi instructions and a transponder squawk code for departure as well as a Departure frequency. The Air Traffic Controller in the Tower went off-duty while the aircraft was taxiing and was unreachable to issue a cleared-for-takeoff response when requested. The pilot continually attempted to contact Departure Control with no success. Other aircraft in the air responded to the pilot's request as well as Center less than 50 miles away. The issue appeared to be with reception on the frequency at Departure Control. After several hours of unsuccessful attempts to contact Departure Control; the pilot called WXBRIEF via cell phone and explained the situation. Flight Service Station spent approximately 45 minutes coordinating with Center and Departure Control to receive a new squawk code; weather brief and takeoff instructions. Aircraft X departed while in radio contact with Center as instructed by both Flight Service and Miami Center. While departing; the pilot continued attempts to contact Departure Control without success until these actions presented an unnecessary safety hazard. The pilot remained in contact with the Center for the remainder of the flight without any incidents.In summary; Departure operations; while the Tower is not in operation; need to be able to receive general aviation radio transmission to safely provide takeoff and landing services.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported being unable contact the appropriate Departure Control to obtain a departure release from the airport after the tower closed.
Date: 201306
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
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 ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We arrived at our assigned gate. I happened to be standing outside the main cabin door when a toddler stepped out of the plane onto the rubber bumper between the plane and jetway. She fell backward toward the widening gap forward of the main cabin door and the lower main door hinge.  I grabbed the young girl before she fell any further. I was frightened by what almost happened and stopped deplaning so the jetway could be moved closer. The Agent informed me that one to two inches was now the requirement by the company. I am writing this report to let someone know this may not be the best solution to prevent damage to an aircraft if we injure one passenger. Perhaps the jetway could have been positioned differently but; the way it was; this child could have fallen all the way to the ground. The gap forward of the main cabin door opened up an even greater distance than at the door opening.I recommend that when the jetway is placed at the main cabin door that no more than a one inch gap is between the plane and the jetway at not only the door opening but on both sides of the door as well for a foot in either direction.

Callback: The reporter stated that the toddler was falling backward toward her bottom and forward on her right side toward the aircraft's nose after stepping of the aircraft on the round; sloping section of the jetway bumper; then loosing her balance. The jetway was positioned per Company policy 2 inches from the fuselage in order to prevent damage to the aircraft door or pitot tubes should the jetway mechanism fail. In this instance; because the gap was wider toward the front of the aircraft than directly adjacent to the fuselage at the door the girl's backward motion and forward trajectory could have taken her completely out of the aircraft forward of the main cabin door in the area of pitot tubes.



Synopsis: An air carrier Captain grabbed a toddler who nearly fell through the opening between the rubber jetway bumper and the aircraft door frame because the gap between the two was too wide.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL270; while at cruise altitude inbound to our destination; we had an electrical power transient that disconnected the Autopilot-1 (AP1) and flickered the Captain's PFD; ND; and upper ECAM. The system reset by itself with no apparent lasting effect. Within about 10-minutes; the same incident reoccurred with additional results of GEN-1 FAULT ECAM and a loss of ability to transmit on any VHF radio despite using all microphones and checking all connections. We attempted to ACARS Dispatch; but they didn't understand our shorthand message. Due to the close proximity to [our destination] and the complications of complying with clearances without transmission capability; our time was focused on continuing to navigate and get the aircraft to [our destination] safely.We complied with all clearances and managed to acknowledge all transmissions by ATC using our Transponder IDENT function. We elected not to complete the GEN-1 ECAM as we believed the automatic process of the GEN-1 trying to reconnect to the electrical bus was creating our communications problems. We elected to put the GEN-1 switch into the 'OFF' position and leave it there to prevent a reconnect of the Generator to the Bus System. Our transmission ability was restored with GEN-1 offline. We verified that GEN-2 was fully powering all busses and systems. The APU was started; but the APU GEN was not connected to the bus for the same reasoning as GEN-1. The VMC conditions facilitated our descent and approach into our destination without incident. The GEN-1 Generator Control Unit (GCU) was found faulty by Maintenance and replaced. Aircraft System Malfunction. Electrical Power. Single Generator Failure.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer describes an inflight event caused by an electrical power transient that disconnected the Autopilot-1 (AP1) and flickered the Captain's PFD; ND; upper ECAM; a GEN-1 FAULT ECAM and loss of VHF radio. GEN-1 was manually positioned to 'OFF' to prevent GEN Auto-reconnect. VHF restored. Generator Control Unit (GCU) for Generator-1 found faulty by Maintenance and replaced.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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 Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through FL 310 to a cruise altitude FL 350; we received cabin altitude visual and aural warnings. We executed the memory items and completed the QRH. I requested a descent to a lower altitude and continued to assess the situation. While coordinating with Dispatch via ACARS and radio patch; the forward lavatory smoke alarm began to sound. There was no smoke or odor in the cockpit and I asked the flight attendants to check the condition of the lav. They reported no smoke present. We were carrying a wet battery filled with alkali in the baggage compartment and; given the situation; elected to divert and land as soon as possible. I coordinated the diversion with Dispatch and ATC.


Second narrative: ...it was decided to go in and land even though we were overweight.As we were being vectored for approach; the forward lav fire warning horn came on. We had the flight attendants verify if there was a fire. There was not. We asked the Tower to have fire trucks standing by. The horn remained on until we got to gate and started deplaning. Fire crew came onboard to verify there was no fire and Maintenance gave us permission to pull the circuit breaker to the silence horn.


Synopsis: A B737-300 flight crew descended from altitude and diverted to a nearby airport when the pressurization system malfunctioned and; during their descent and diversion they received a forward lavatory fire indication that; although evidence of a fire couldn't be verified; caused them to declare an emergency and request CFR to standby.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBP.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D SBP
ATC / advisory: Tower SBP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other on landing
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About 10-20 miles from the airport; I copied ATIS information which indicated wind from 190@7. This favored runway 11; so I requested and received a visual approach to runway 11. As I maneuvered to enter a right base for runway 11; the tower informed me that the winds had shifted to 220@9; and offered me runway 25. Since the winds favored runway 25; I accepted runway 25. The tower cleared me to land on runway 25; and I confirmed that clearance. This was my first time landing on a runway other than 29 at SBP; since the winds almost always favor 29. Even though I presumably confirmed runway 25 (I don't remember the tower correcting me; as they would have if I had said runway 29); I set up a left downwind entry for 29 out of habit. The 29 downwind runs near some hills; so I became preoccupied with the terrain. Turning base for 29 (not 25; as I had been cleared) I requested and received a wind check. I then turned final for 29 and landed. In the landing rollout; the tower advised me of the deviation and provided a phone number.Because I was used to landing on 29; and complacent from landing on a VFR day at [this] airport; I didn't stop to think about the unusual (to me) runway assignment; or stop to double check my assigned runway. I also didn't write down the assigned runway. If; after getting the runway assignment; I had written it down and/or slowed things down a bit to allow me to focus on the unusual (to me) clearance; I'd have been much more likely to realize my error and avoid landing on the wrong runway. Instead; because I was complacent and distracted; I landed on the wrong runway.




Synopsis: Cessna pilot reported landing on the wrong runway after a wind and runway change.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tail Boom
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After loading plane; during final outside check of airplane before boarding; I had failed to notice; remove; and stow the tail stand (required safety equipment used to prevent a tail heavy load from setting the plane on its tail).During flight I noticed my cruise speed was about 3 to 5 kts slower than usual and noticed a slight and subtle pitch oscillation not resulting in altitude change. The only thing I could think that might cause this was flying with the tail stand still installed which creates a small amount of drag. While there is only a slight possibility of the tail stand coming off as a result of a hard landing (the design of the stand is made to be able to take off; fly; and land with it because of a safety wire latch on the installation bolt prevents it from coming loose); I; none-the-less took every precaution to make the smoothest landing and use a smooth slow deceleration so as to prevent the possibility of the stand coming off.  After landing; I exited a taxiway that is seldom used; contacted ground to inform them I needed to shut my engine off and get out of the plane to check if I had left my tail stand installed and then stow it if I had. They sent two airport maintenance trucks over to assist. When I got out; I discovered indeed I had left it installed but thankfully it was still there and I removed and stowed it before taxiing to the cargo ramp.During the night; the plane was inspected and confirmed there was no damage to plane or stand. Normally I leave the rear cargo pod door open where I stow the tail stand so that I won't forget to stow it. I'm thinking I may have opened and closed it as I do the others. To prevent this from happening again; I will be leaving all the pod doors open while loading and then close all after stowing as the last item of the final check before boarding the plane.




Synopsis: Cessna Caravan pilot reported failure to remove the tail stand before flight.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IND.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower IND
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; the gear would not retract. I then selected SYS 2 and gear retracted normally. However; SYS 2 was deferred. We continued flight to destination and submitted AML for system 1.In hindsight; I've considered my action to use system 2 was wrong because of the deferral. During preflight and review of the Aircraft Release /AML; it was apparent that this was an ongoing maintenance issue. A recent flight had the same problem on takeoff and elected to use other system also; So in my mind; there was uncertainty on what was the problem between system 1 and 2. Additionally; there was not any history of landing gear extension issues; so at the time and in heat of the moment; I believed I was taking the safest course of action. Weather (snow and ice) was a consideration. I didn't want to leave the gear hanging if ice was present.




Synopsis: Airbus Captain reported using System 2; even though it was deferred; to retract the landing gear when it failed to retract using System 1.