elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Departure; Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working arriving aircraft to Runway 8L. A B737 was on a 3 mile left base for Runway 8L on a visual approach. The B737 initiated a go-around due to windshear. I climbed aircraft to 3;000 FT and turned to a heading of 360 (normal procedure). I issued an additional turn to a heading of 300 for a downwind back to the airport and was getting ready to transfer communication when I notice a B767 going around on Runway 8R and turning to the north inside the B737. I immediately turned the B737 back to a heading of 360 to avoid conflict with the B767. Then the Monitor took over and climbed the B737 to 4;000 FT and initiated another turn. The Monitor then assumed control of the B767 to bring the aircraft around for another approach. I had no idea I90 was turning the aircraft on Runway 8R to the north. Some communication would have been helpful for this event.


Second narrative: I was going back and forth between TMU and Monitor. I was working Monitor north for about 15 minutes during a period of heavy thunderstorm activity. I was made aware that an aircraft was going around on [Runway] 8L because of weather. I asked Local North to give me control so that I could turn him back toward the final; approved; I then noticed a heavy B767 going around on [Ruwnay] 8R. The heavy was turning northerly but I was unaware who was working him so I delayed giving any control instructions until I could ascertain the correct actions. Local North; for reasons unbeknownst to me; turned the B737 into the flight path of the 767. While it is outside of my area of jurisdiction; I took action to prevent a possible collision. The B737 did have the B767 in sight and was instructed to maintain visual separation. I do not know if separation was compromised and I do not recall the collision alert sounding. Aircraft that go missed approach inside the final approach fix should be separated by the Tower and then delivered to the appropriate sector when they are separated.


Synopsis: IAH Controller described a go-around event resulting in a conflict when coordination between the Tower and TRACON was ineffective.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When the landing gear handle was lowered for landing; the landing gear didn't move and we got LH Hydraulic low quantity and fail amber CAS messages. We consulted the appropriate checklist and blew the gear down. The mains indicated down and locked but the nose gear did not. I called company and [we decided to] divert to ZZZ. We ran through checklists; consulted with ACP; Maintenance and the Manufacturer. We tried alternate procedures provided by the Manufacturer but the nose gear still indicated not down. We performed fly bys at both airports and gear appeared to be down but the taxi light on nose gear did not illuminate. When all options were exhausted we decided to land with the concurrence of all. FA had been kept in loop and he did a GREAT job with [passengers.] I went aft and briefed the passengers. We then landed without problem but since the nose gear wasn't [locked] down couldn't pin gear. Eventually; the over center strut was forced into position manually and the gear was pinned. We were then able to taxi to parking without assistance. The passengers deplaned normally.Past training was a big help but you are never totally ready for something like this. The First Officer did a great job in right seat.




Synopsis: A G-IV diverted to an airport with a longer runway when the nose gear failed to give a down and locked indication. They landed without incident at the diversion airport but found the overcenter strut had failed to correctly position itself. A pin was inserted after forcing it overcenter and the aircraft was taxied to parking.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Data link clearance received was confusing. The filed routing was JCOBY3.SWANN BROSS J42 RBV LLUND BAYYS. The clearance received through the data link was: CLEARED TO RBV VIAROUTE CLEARANCEVIA TODIRECT SWANN N3909.0W07613.7DIRECT. BROSS N3911.4W07552.8J42. RBV N4012.1W07429.7+LOAD NEW RTE TO RBV+ AFTERRBV CLEARED AS FILED;JCOBY3.SWANN; CLIMB VIA SID;EXPECT FL270 10 MIN AFT DP;DPFRQ SEE SID; SQUAWK XXXX;-----KIAD JCOBY3.SWANN BROSSJ42 RBV LLUND BAYYS….This clearance is confusing and misleading. If you load the FMC with your filed routing to include the JCOBY3 SID with the SWANN transition prior to receiving the data link clearance; the route is correct. After receiving the data link clearance you get a load prompt. If you accept the downlinked clearance; it deletes the SID; even though the clearance goes on to say you're cleared via the SID. The data link clearance leads you to believe that the routing was amended; when in fact it is the exact route that was filed. The way the data link clearance is formatted is confusing and could lead to unnecessary errors. On other occasions I've received a different formatting on the data link clearance that is more accurate and clearly states that you are cleared as filed.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer provided an example of a very confusing CPDLC PDC.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were doing the RNAV Visual to Runway 31. Weather was not a factor. Autopilot was on; everything was set; stabilized; on path; pretty much a perfect approach; or so we thought. VASI was also red over white; so from our end there was nothing wrong. Tower gave us a low altitude alert asking us to check our altimeter setting immediately. We had no GPWS (Ground Proximity Warning System) warning; like I said we were right on profile. My concern is; why did the Tower give us that alert? If we got that alert; shouldn't every Company aircraft flying the RNAV Visual to 31 get the same alert? Is there something wrong with the procedure? Their equipment? Or did we make a mistake? If we did; we don't know what we could have done differently. Could you guys look into this? Is LGA handing out this warning to everyone? Because if we received this alert based on what we were doing; then everyone landing on 31 on the RNAV should be in the same place altitude and position as us plus or minus 10 feet?




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying 737NG aircraft received Alert from Air Traffic Control on approach.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Captain and Pilot Monitoring; noted that there was smoke coming from somewhere around the left side of the flight deck and declared smoke in the cockpit.  As Pilot flying; [I] knocked off my headset and dawned my oxygen mask and noted a bluish color smoke filling the cockpit.  This was shortly after we had climbed through FL180.  I started a level off and the Pilot Monitoring ran the immediate action checklist started the QRH and declared an emergency and asked for lower and a heading to the nearest suitable airport for landing.  A major airport was about 20 NM away and we were given direct to the airfield for landing.   The Pilot Monitoring dinged the Flight Attendant to let her know that we were diverting and to prepare the cabin.  I then stared a decent at about 4;000 FT per minute.  ATC pointed out the airport at about 10 miles away and we turned down wind for landing.   On the downwind; I noted that the smoke had dissipated.  We decided on the visual to the runway backed up by the Localizer.  The approach was normal and landing was smooth.  After the Captain took over after landing we came to a complete stop and the fire crew inspected the aircraft for any visible smoke or fire damage.  We then taxied to a gate with a jet bridge and deplaned all passengers.  After we were at the gate the fire crew took a look at the battery compartment and noted that there was black soot inside.  Total flight time from takeoff to landing was about 21 minutes.We could not establish clear communications with the oxygen masks on.  We put on our headsets over top of the O2 masks and established communications.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 crew detected cockpit smoke so they declared an emergency; completed the QRH and diverted to a nearby airport where black soot was discovered in the battery compartment.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During boarding; I was standing in an exit row scanning passengers for meeting the selection criteria to sit there. There was a lot going on in the exit row and I was preoccupied with confirming that two younger passengers met the age requirement and whether another passenger was willing to assist. One of the last passengers to board was holding a really small dog in front of her face and I was concerned with whether or not she was wearing a mask with a valve on it. After she sat in the exit row and I determined she had a mask with a valve and needed to get her a disposable mask; I failed to realize that her dog disqualified her from sitting there because I was distracted by her mask and addressing the other passengers' needs to meet exit seat criteria. I did confirm the other passengers' eligibility and briefed the exit row passengers; but during cruise; the B Flight Attendant notified me there was a passenger with a dog in the exit row. I was shocked to realize my mistake and immediately moved the passenger to an empty seat behind the exit row; so the passengers met the exit seat criteria for final descent.Focus my attention on scanning each passenger again for selection criteria prior to briefing and really check on their laps and under their seats for pets. Have the B or D Flight Attendant cross check exit row passenger selection criteria after boarding is complete. Ensure the operations agent gives out disposable masks to passengers with valves prior to boarding; so flight attendants can focus more on other safety precautions. Have operations agent notify any passengers with pets that they cannot occupy an exit seat as they scan their boarding pass.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger with a dog was seated in the exit row; however; the flight attendant did not recognize this due to being distracted with the passenger's face mask non-compliance.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Working 52/53 with light traffic. Called Canada Drummond sector for point out on Aircraft X. Was told stand by. Waited two minutes. Called again. No reply. Called a third time approaching the boundary. No reply. Called a fourth time; 'I'm going to have to spin him' No reply. Issued a right turn to a 200 heading to Aircraft X; which would be a 190 degree turn. Airplane asked for clarification. Repeated the instruction. Got back on the line for point out as the aircraft was going to penetrate the airspace. Drummond finally answered and took a point out and called the aircraft radar for Alymer Sector. I cleared Aircraft X direct to his next fix and transferred communications to Alymer.Automated hand offs to Canada would eliminate the need for manual phone calls on every single airplane.




Synopsis: Boston Center Controller reported communication problems with Canada ATC during a Non-Automated hand off.
Date: 201601
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When I was trained in fueling; I was trained that the dust covers over the nozzle was of the utmost importance to keep contaminants out of the fuel. I was trained that if your truck was missing a dust cap from the nozzle for any period of time the truck had to be taken out of service and had to be checked for contaminants through a series of tests before the vehicle could be rendered safe again to operate. The Company was so strict on this policy that you were given clean white rags that you would wipe the top of your nozzle off before you hooked your nozzle to the Aircraft. The reason I am writing this safety report is that I was informed that this is no longer the policy and all they do is simply put the dust cap back on the nozzle or if it was nonexistent they simply get one and place it on. I have seen a large amount of Fuel Trucks with dust caps not over the nozzle or simply missing from the truck completely. Now with all of the glycol; ice melter dust; and all the other stuff floating around the airport; how can this not be dangerous for our passengers and our aircraft? I was trained that contaminants in the fuel can cause a flameout which ultimately can cause a crash.




Synopsis: Fuel Truck Operator questioned the safety implications of relaxing the Company requirement for strict adherence to the use of dust covers on fuel nozzles.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Second reporter function: Skydiver
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Aircraft parked
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A skydiver under a square canopy descended...into and collided with the leading edge and main wing spar of a properly parked; unoccupied and securely tied down Cessna 150 aircraft on an asphalt tie down area of the ramp.... The skydiver's right tennis shoe left a skid mark on the leading edge of the right wing; three inches aft of the leading edge; one foot inboard of the upper strut attach point. The skydiver's butt impacted sheet metal between the front main wing spar and leading edge; thereby creasing sheet metal six inches span-wise along the front edge of the main wing spar and bending nose rib inside the wing.... Skydiver impacted with a force of approximately 500 LBS; bounced off wing onto asphalt ramp/taxiway and proceeded to walk away without looking or coming back to examine the aircraft. When confronted by the owner of the aircraft; skydiver ...said that the claimed area of impact showed no signs of visible damage. Actual area of impact was discovered by owner 30 minutes subsequent to time of impact. The Skydiver was too inexperienced to be jumping unsupervised....




Synopsis: C150 owner observed wing damage due to impact by a skydiver who landed on the parked aircraft.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My intention was to arrive at my destination prior to thunderstorms forecast in the area. The majority of the flight was conducted with headwinds of 10-20 KTS; leading to higher than expected fuel burn and longer than planned time en route. A potential fuel stop at an airport along the route was bypassed in the mistaken belief that there was enough fuel on board to make my destination. While descending after clearing controlled airspace the engine lost power; I called a Mayday and attempted to restart the engine. Selection of alternate fuel tanks allowed me to regain the engine long enough to climb and stretch the glide to my destination rather than landing off-airport. Engine power was lost for good just short of the threshold; and a successful engine-out landing was completed with no injury or damage to the aircraft.This incident was avoidable. A less optimistic assessment of the flight duration and fuel burn vs. available fuel would have indicated that it was impossible to complete with adequate fuel reserves. A 20-minute fuel stop would have prevented this.




Synopsis: While attempting to stretch his fuel to get to his destination ahead of forecast weather the pilot of a PA28-B ran out of fuel but was able to extend his glide just enough to reach the touchdown zone of his destination airport.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PAO
ATC / advisory: Tower PAO
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action

Narrative: I was flying simulated IFR (under the hood) at 2100 ft. (based on the SQL altimeter setting) near the WSW (magnetic) edge of PAO Class D airspace; maneuvering into straight-in approach position for landing SQL Runway 30. (The dashed box on the San Francisco TAC chart indicates that the PAO Class D airspace ceiling is 2000 ft. MSL. It depicts a radius of 3 nm in the vicinity of the incident.)ADSB audio warned us of nearby traffic. The ADSB 2 mile radius display screen indicated a relative height of -100 ft. (and after evasive action; +100 ft.) yellow target; converging courses; aircraft to our right. My CFII instructor; in the right seat; took control of the aircraft and took evasive action by turning to the left. Thereafter; I reassumed control.Immediately after landing at SQL; SQL Tower advised that PAO Tower said we were supposed to remain clear of PAO airspace. The implication was that we had penetrated their airspace; although we didn't think we had.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported while on an instrument training flight they had a near mid-air collision and possible airspace incursion.