elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: RV-7
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working 1Z and observed a fast moving; rapidly descending VFR northwest of FXE; southeast bound out of 066. I tagged the target ''watch'' and backsplatted to the busy FLL feeder and final controller. Final control had to break Aircraft X out wider in his downwind; then turn the aircraft in tighter than should have been needed for the approach because this VFR blew through both finals into HWO. Upon calling the Tower; HWO informed us the callsign of this VFR was Aircraft Y and was an experimental. VFR's should not be allowed to create such an unsafe situation flying through both finals like this; especially when they're busy.FLL airport is the 19th busiest airport in the USA; and one of the top 3 fastest growing; averaging 8% growth each of the last 5 years. FLL has a basic Class C Airspace surrounding it; that is beyond out of date and unable to aid in the safety of its aircraft on the finals. Planes inbound to each of their parallel runways are not offered any sort of protection until within 5 miles of the field; which allows several dozen VFRs each day to climb; descend; and transition across each final; without ATC advisories creating a very dangerous; unsafe; and hazardous situation in the skies above. The FLL Class C is inadequate; and out of date; and needs a major airspace change around it; whether a bigger Charlie; or a full blown Class B before it's too late.




Synopsis: Miami TRACON Controller reported a problem with VFR aircraft flying too close to final and requesting an airspace change.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I operated [a flight pairing] which ended the evening of [date] in ZZZ for a scheduled 11 hour layover with a XA:50 report the morning of the [date.] At XB:11 east coast time Crew Scheduling called me and interrupted my crew rest to notify that my pairing had been modified. This modification included a later report time and a 'soft' reset of my Out of Duty Time Clock. The modification also changed the pairing from a three day trip to a two day trip ending in ZZZ1. This was mid rest interruption number 1. Upon arriving in ZZZ1 I was notified at XC:49 Central time that I was now assigned a XD:00 short call for the following morning; 12 hours and 11 minutes later. At XC:56 central time I was contacted by crew scheduling. They 'released' me to rest and assigned pairing to me which was to report later that same day at XD:25. The flights to ZZZ2 and return flight were to operate over 8 hours later than displayed on the pairing due to aircraft availability. My second mid rest interruption occurred at XE:05 when Crew Scheduling again contacted me via phone waking me. I answered the phone and the scheduler was 're verifying' that I had acknowledged my assignment. I was unable to sleep again after the second contact.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that crew scheduling repeatedly contacted him during his off-duty rest period to modify his schedule and caused him to call in fatigued.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Globemaster (C-17)
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Military Facility ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to ILS; vectored in high and tight. After localizer capture; aggressive descent was required to capture the glideslope. This aggressive VVI towards the ground caused the Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS) to activate. In IMC; at the same time the terrain warning went off; we lost all ILS signal capability on both sides; to include flight directors. As a gut reaction to a terrain warning (TAWS; not GPWS) I performed an aggressive go-around and blew through the missed approach altitude (1;500 FT; then 3;000 FT MSL) by about 1;100 FT; eventually leveling off at 4;150 FT MSL; flustered with a hand-full of airplane. Tower was notified and they passed the word to Approach; who thankfully said 4;000 FT was fine.The sequence of events was debriefed on the ground by the crew and with [Approach.] I should have continued the approach to the MAP and executed the missed in accordance with the published procedure.




Synopsis: C-17 First Officer reported they received a terrain warning while on final approach; they executed a go-around and overshot the missed approach altitude by about 1;100 FT.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As the on duty Operations Supervisor; I was monitoring the position due to Aircraft X traversing the airspace. Aircraft X was direct and approximately level at 11;000 feet. Aircraft Y [was] level at 11;000 feet heading northeast. Aircraft X was switched to Approach on course when I observed Aircraft Y making a north turn. I advised the Radar Controller who was discussing something with the Radar Associate. The Radar Controller then saw the situation and Aircraft Y to turn to a 090 heading. After advising the Radar Controller; I then advised the Radar Associate to call Approach and have Aircraft X descend or turn him west. The Radar Associate did talk to Approach and they descended Aircraft X. Aircraft Y made the turn to 090 degrees. At no time was separation lost between the two aircraft. I advised the next sector to issue a brasher warning to Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: ZOB Supervisor observed an aircraft deviate from their course to a heading that was towards another aircraft and advised the Radar Controller.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ground gave the following clearance prior to take off: 'Cleared direct to SADDE; maintain runway heading to the LAX 315 radial then turn to a heading of 250 degrees; vectors to V-299. Climb and maintain 3;000 FT; expect 5;000 FT ten minutes after; squawk XXXX; Departure XXX.X' I repeated the clearance back and was not corrected (except for a confirmation of the squawk code). I flew directly to SADDE and when passing the LAX 315 radial; I turned to 250 degrees. In retrospect I realize that the Controller didn't really mean to use the word 'direct' SADDE but 'cleared' to SADDE via runway heading; crossing the LAX 315 radial turn to 250 for vectors to V-299.I failed to realize at the time 'runway heading' and 'direct' were contradictory and should have questioned the clearance further. It was only after contacting Departure Control that I realized the obvious. To the best of my knowledge; no conflict was created as no mention was made by Tower or Departure. Soon after I contacted Departure I was given a vector. I will be more diligent in the future when copying; reading back and making sense of clearances.




Synopsis: Pilot of a small aircraft experienced a track deviation on takeoff from SMO. After contacting Departure Control; Reporter realized that there was a contradictory element in the takeoff clearance which he had missed.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Found two small Lithium Ion batteries for a Go Pro type camera; 434 V with 1220mAh not attached to equipment; 8 hand held radios with batteries attached with 7.4V with 17Wh; and two spray cans of Coleman Insect Repellent SkinSmart. As per Material Safety Data Sheet (MDS); IATA; UN1993 Class 3 Flammable Liquid. The simple MAWB [Master Airways Bill] only indicates apparels. Lastly; no indication of any of the above on the MAWB document or on the outer packaging.




Synopsis: Air carrier Load Agent reported unreported Hazmat Dangerous Goods in shipment labeled as apparels.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Indications
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While flying out to the [local] practice area. The Pilot Under Instruction (PUI) and I both noticed that the % power gauge was fluctuating between 0% and 65%. No other abnormalities were noted; but we decided to return to the airport. After requesting to return and receiving [clearance for] the arrival; I noticed the fuel flow indication fluctuating and dropping to as low as 2.2. At this time I [advised ATC] and requested to land. We landed without incident and returned to the ramp. I can double and triple check all the engine indications during the run up to be sure that there are no issues that can be detected on the ground. In this case; no abnormalities were noted by myself or the PUI during the run up.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cirrus SR20 reported observing fluctuations in the engine power indication. During the return flight; the fuel flow indication was also noted to be low and fluctuating.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E SEZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF SEZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About forty miles out [from SEZ] I started to monitor CTAF and heard various aircraft coming and going from the airport. Because of the wind; aircraft were using Runway 21. At 10 miles out I made my first position announcement; at 5 miles out I made my second position announcement; at which time the only other aircraft announcing on the CTAF landed at Sedona. I then made an announcement at mid-field downwind; again turning base and my last call turning final. During this time; no other aircraft were announcing on the CTAF. As I completed my turn to final and was just beginning my final descent; I caught something in my peripheral vision at my 3 o'clock. It took a second for me to process that something was actually at my 3 o'clock as I had just cleared that area visually on my turn from base to final. As I glanced back out the window at my 3 o'clock; I see a commercial sightseeing helicopter now paralleling my flight path at 100 to 150 lateral feet away from me and at my altitude. I would estimated that I was at least 800 FT AGL and on a 3/4 mile final when I encountered the helicopter. What a sightseeing helicopter is doing in the final approach path of fixed wing aircraft is beyond me; especially in light of the fact that he was landing on the northeast side of the runway. The pilot must not be familiar with 91.126 (b) (2). I also think that it is very careless that a radio equipped helicopter was not making position calls; nor was he obviously monitoring his radio for mine. I also wonder if the helicopter has an inoperative transponder or if it was simply off too; as my Skywatch Traffic Advisory System never picked him up. It seems to me that the commercial pilot of this sightseeing helicopter was operating in a reckless and careless manner.




Synopsis: The pilot of light single reported an NMAC with a helicopter who allegedly was not following procedures at SEZ.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger refuses to wear a mask. She boarded in one and was also wearing it during compliance. She refuses to comply after being asked by both me and the D Flight Attendant. She says she can't wear them for a long period of time. I kindly reminded her it is part of the agreement by choosing to fly in these times; but she refuses.It is unsafe for those around her and us; as crew; who continually have to stop by her row when she rings her call light. Since this is a matter of safety and the well-being of both passengers and employees in an unprecedented global pandemic; a medical exemption should require a medical clearance from a doctor; as well as a negative COVID test within 72 hours of flying with us.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger refused to wear a face mask during flight.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was PF (Pilot Flying) and received an RA about 20 NM SW of ZZZ. Descending from 7;000-5;000 feet; I received a TA and immediately reduced my rate of descent. I received an RA while leveling off at 5;000 [feet] regarding traffic 500 feet below; I complied and cleared the conflict. The aircraft was landed safely without issue.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reports an NMAC during descent.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDCS.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A MDCS
ATC / advisory: Center MDCS
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL380 approximately 170 NM northwest of our destination; the ECAM displayed: AUTO FLT/AP OFF; AUTO FLT/A/THR OFF AUTO FLT/FCU 1&2 FAULT. The QRH procedure (a reset) was unsuccessful. We informed Dispatch of the problem; declared an emergency; continued to our destination remaining in VFR conditions and landed.




Synopsis: An A319 suffered the loss of several autoflight functions at altitude as they approached their destination. When efforts to restore the systems failed they continued in VMC to a safe landing.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: S-76/S-76 Mark II
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While in cruise flight; aircraft on autopilot; LNAV; my head was down programing the GPS when I observed the airspeed low; I cross checked my power and observed the autopilot had initiated an uncommanded climb. Possible that I unintentionally entered Class B.




Synopsis: S76 pilot reports a possible Class B incursion due to an uncommanded climb by the autopilot while the reporter was focused on the GPS.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Heavy Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: 34 KG of Lithium Ion batteries loaded in Lower Aft Cargo Compartment. The only firefighting capability in these compartments is Halon; which is not effective on Li-Metal and marginally effective on Li-ion. Reference this quote [from an article]; 'While Halon has been shown to suppress the flames from a lithium-ion battery fire; the FAA has stated it's marginally effective in protecting cargo shipments due to its inability to prevent cell-to-cell thermal runaway propagation. As lithium-ion cells are heated during the fire; flammable vapors are vented and can accumulate in an enclosed space; setting the stage for an explosion if a spark is introduced; such as from an adjacent battery igniting.'Company Policy allowing Lithium Batteries to be carried in the lower cargo compartments when that is not the safest choice. Plus it's hard to verify the shipments are properly loaded/blocked if you wanted to confirm such. As long as we're carrying Li batteries without better rules from the FAA or ICAO; all lithium batteries should be loaded on the main cargo deck where the Fire Suppression System (FSS) supposedly is more effective combating a Li battery fire and we know Halon is not.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain laments the loading of Lithium Ion batteries in Lower Aft Cargo Compartment where the only firefighting capability is Halon; which is not effective on Li-Metal and marginally effective on Li-ion. He believes that if Lithium batteries are to be carried they should be loaded on the main deck where they can be inspected and the FSS is better.