elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; 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 session involved multiple military fighter aircraft returning from military airspace. I was assigned the position without help. There was no traffic when I took over. I was asked after all fighters were in my communication if I would need a D-Side. At this point; way too late to be effective; there would not have been much else to do except listen for read backs and coordinate what I was already had ready to do in time. Later a D-Side came in but way to late to be of assistance and so was mainly listening and trying to get a handle on the traffic. To complicate the situation the first group of fighters had poor English. This situation is typical of what we expect on the floor as controllers and demonstrates many failures of the airspace and TMU offices that seem to never get addressed. I learned after this session that the airspace person had advised our supervisors that we would get foreign fighter pilots to practice locally. Apparently; airspace was to brief the workforce and would get details which never happened. IF WE RECEIVE ANY FOREIGN FIGHTER PILOTS (or other fighter group visitors) we [need] a BRIEFING. Our briefings have been dropped on numerous military operations and have been poorly done which leads to much confusion on the floor. It is horribly unsafe especially in light of pilots doing weird things lately. Get TMU and OM's involved. How can we have a volume of 6 fighter groups; bad weather; non-standard runways; and foreign pilots and no person with authority that has any awareness of a situation like what an ability to consider metering or a MIT program? Require flights to return via only high or low altitudes. Stacking flights on the same routes and expect them to be placed with proper separation in 50 miles plus the fact that these foreign groups have different standards for spacing in non-standard groups. I was told that we are not allowed to use 'Button 5' or similar for communication changes. No problem however; over numerous times the fighter groups only refer to the changes in this way. It is much simpler to do and get the point across with this verbiage in plain form.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller described an unsafe condition when preparations for handling multiple foreign military aircraft were not properly briefed or planned.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CWRLD 4 Arrival to MCO RWY 17L. Two miles prior to LAMMA vectored heading 180 and descend to 8;000 feet. HDG Select 180 and Level Change at 250 knots. Vector 200 and descent 4;000 feet. We asked for a descent due to being slightly high. ATC responded; 'Unable;' due to airspace. I slowed to 210 knots to avoid being high and fast. As we slowed; ATC asked if we had slowed and not complied with the STAR. We said we slowed to 210 and then accelerated back to 250 to comply with the Controller's request. Our issue is that we were vectored off the STAR prior to reaching a speed restriction point (LAMMA). A speed clearance was never issued by ATC; but they wanted us to maintain 250 knots. They knew our situation being high (due to requesting lower); but still expected us to remain fast. Simple clarification of required speed both from us and ATC may have prevented this.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an airspeed deviation during arrival to MCO while on the CWRLD 4.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After on to hold clearance at MIA 26L was then cleared for takeoff as given a departure clearance that crew did not understand. When asked controller for clarification and repeat; instead controller stated to taxi clear or take off as he had traffic on 4 mile final. After takeoff was assigned runway heading and controller stated that this was an ongoing problem with crews from [our airline]. The PDC stated the WINCO 1 SID with the WINCO transition in the top of the body of the PDC. Below AFTER that was buried in verbiage the BSTER 1 WINCO transition. As this was a change to the above initial clearance but had no indication; ie (.....).to indicate a change to routing on flight plan OR initial clearance above. As both SID initial heading was fly heading 272 heading we were on SID ROUTING and were able to comply with ATC and SID clearances. After runway heading was assigned heading to intercept point on SID and complied. The PDC method used at this airport is confusing and nonstandard to other airports we fly into; as evidenced by the controller's statement that this is an ongoing problem. Experienced flight crews repeatedly being confused should precipitate a change to the way the PDC or clearance is being issued for departure.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported confusion departing MIA because of what they called a 'confusing and non-standard' PDC format.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Since the removal of the baggage handlers from the ticket counter the agents are picking up all of the checked baggage. Granted; the number is much reduced from the pre-COVID days; but to go from lifting 5-10 bags per shift to over 100 is an OJI [On The Job Injury] waiting to happen. I understand it is part of the job; but I have suggested several times that we attempt to rotate the employees to share the lifting and minimize the injury risk; but it has mostly fallen on deaf ears. I believe this is a legitimate safety risk and I don't want to see anyone injured if it is preventable.




Synopsis: Customer Service Agent reported that agents are doing baggage handling during the COVID-19 pandemic and may get hurt lifting so many bags per shift.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X on Date was boarded with 2 passengers and taxied out. Apparently the night before the same plane was cancelled due to fumes. On [that] morning we (crew of 5) were deadheaded to ZZZ to take the same aircraft to ZZZ1. I do not understand who determined the aircraft was now safe to fly. The FO (First Officer) and FA's (Flight Attendants) smelled a strange musty odor on taxi out and returned to the gate. We did not take the plane to ZZZ1.The decision made that the plane was indeed safe to fly when there were still fumes in the cabin.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported a 'strange musty odor' during taxi. Flight returned to gate and did not take aircraft to destination.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared via the arrival into ZZZ. Because we were filed at FL240 the Airbus being what it is dropped the constraints at FL240 and above. I did make note of this at ZZZZZ Intersection - the speed was there but not the +240. When the ride deteriorated I started down early forgetting about the dropped constraint. Controller gave us a number to Center and I called and explained what happened and why.Got the arrival review done and forgot about the dropped constraint.Have Airbus fix this problem since it has been happening since we started the RNAV arrivals.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported failure to comply with a charted altitude restriction on arrival; citing the Airbus' FMC design as contributing to the incident.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My student and I were doing traffic pattern work and on the 5th or 6th lap; our engine had a major reduction of power at roughly 600 ft. AGL. I admittedly did notice a little bit of engine oscillations during some climb outs before the RPM drop lap but only after we were well in the air. I adjusted the mixture to rectify and it did solve the problem. When the event did happen; we were still in our upwind leg and were certain we were going to put the plane down on route 1. I checked to see that we didn't have the mixture out; that our throttle was open; we were on a tank and not off or in-between (we knew that our time in the air was not remotely enough to drain a tank); and that our fuel pump was on. I tried seeing if it was rectifiable with reduced mixture but it did not work. Only after cycling the throttle did we regain power and able to nurse the plane back to the runway. We did request priority handling.




Synopsis: PA-28 Flight Instructor reported a significant loss of engine power while in the traffic pattern. The Instructor managed to regain partial power and make an immediate landing.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cowling/Nacelle Fasteners; Latches
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had parked the aircraft at gate; received the chocks-in signal from the ground crew; and had sent the post flight [data]. Passengers had already started the deplaning process. The sun had already set and it was raining and windy. About four minutes after blocking in; the Captain and myself felt a jolt to the aircraft while we were sitting in the flight deck. I opened my flight deck window to see if anything had happened on my side of the aircraft. I noticed a few ground personnel standing near the number 2 engine. I also noticed a bag cart that was not attached to any other vehicles near the engine. The Captain and I decided to go out on the ramp to investigate what had happened. When we went outside; we noticed damage to the outside cowling of the number two engine from an apparent impact with the bag cart. We immediately went back up to the flight deck and proceeded to make a [logbook] entry and notify [Maintenance Controller] by verbal means as well.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a baggage cart made contact with the aircraft while parked at the gate.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORF.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger reported seeing a large drone flying just near the wingtip of the airplane. Drone was described as 3 feet in length; dark grey in color and spherical in shape. Stated that it had an arm with a camera and a green blinking light and just missed the wing of the airplane on the right hand side. Altitude was approximately 17;000 ft when it was reported to the crew.

Callback: The reporter stated his altitude was 17;000 ft when notified by the Flight Attendant about the UAS. The encounter may had been much lower but the report delayed because of the sterile cockpit procedure. The Flight Attendant believed the passenger knew what he was talking about and believed the UAS flew formation with the aircraft which at the time was climbing at 230 kts.



Synopsis: An EMB-175 Captain reported being advised by a Flight Attendant that a passenger witnessed a dark grey; spherically shaped UAS three feet long flew near their aircraft's wingtip at some point during departure.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PLU.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on an IFR training flight controlled by Seattle Approach on 120.1. I was the CFII in the right seat. My student (aircraft owner) was flying the airplane. We were on the GPS approach to runway 35 at PLU. The controller cleared us for the approach and switch to advisory with a traffic call to the West. The setting sun made it impossible to spot the traffic. Shortly after the call; I spotted the other aircraft below and to our right about 200 feet; close enough to see the tail numbers. It had apparently crossed under us and was flying a pirate GPS approach. We had switched to advisory and they called a 'Straight in approach; traffic permitting.' I advised on the radio that we were passing on their left (to avoid collision.) We passed the Skyhawk and continued to the missed approach and contacted Seattle Approach. The Seattle controller questioned the incident and we advised of the Skyhawk flying a GPS approach without clearance.




Synopsis: C182 instructor pilot reported a NMAC with a C172 on approach to PLU.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I believe that this situation could have been avoided with an increase in the knowledge requirements to operate an unmanned aircraft. Drones near misses are becoming more common and I feel that an emphasis should be made on keeping a vigilant scan outside the cockpit.


Second narrative: I strongly believe that if an aircraft were to depart off of 17R/17C on the HRPER3 it would have been on a collision course with the Drone. The proximity of this drone in regards to our aircraft was and is unsettling. My best guess was that they were using this drone to get as close to the aircraft as they could and take video footage of the planes on the departure. Not sure how to correct this problem but the size of this drone could have caused quite a bit of damage to our engine/wing/windshield. Possibly; could the FAA create better public awareness in regards to operating drones? Possibly require drones to have a MODE C if operating above 500 ft? Something needs to be done with this drone problem because after today; I feel like we (as a society) are waiting on the when; not if; an aircraft will be put in an emergency situation due to a drone strike.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported a NMAC with a Drone.
Date: 202201
Location: ROC.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ROC
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While waiting to be parked at Gate xx; First Officers RA (radio Altimeter) indication was wildly erratic. Fluctuated between 0 and 2500 ft. continuously for the entire time we waited for a guide man. Returned to normal after taxiing forward to the gate.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported RA anomalies on taxi in at ROC; citing possible 5G interference as the cause of the event.