elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A MIA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot monitoring on a Pegasus 767-300 on departure; when five thousand feet from level off we lost VNAV. We detected the FMC had dropped the cruise altitude somehow; so we're entered cruise altitude of FL320. As we leveled off; we had been cleared to MEAGAN intersection on the departure; but the magenta line was gone from the PFD. Looking at the FMC; we saw that now the route was gone. I selected the departure again; but when I tried to execute it; it gave me a scratch pad message 'stand by one'. As I tried to execute the route the FMC locked up and failed to work. We notified ATC who gave us a heading as we worked on the problem. We ran the QRH procedure and slowly gained some use of the FMC in a limited state. We were finally able to load a route using LAT/LON and execute it. This was done using route two; route one was non-functional at this time. As we loaded more points; ATC gave us a heading for REMIS and we put it in the FMC and it allowed us to execute and NAV. As we continued; more of the functions began to return on both FMC's. We were finally able to load the entire route and successfully navigate to destination without further complications. Dispatch; the company and ATC were advised during the event. No deviations occurred that we are aware of.




Synopsis: B767 pilot describes a strange Pegasus FMC failure that the crew is eventually able to overcome; after much effort; and continue to destination.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Through the weekend the Military was working in W174. This was apparently a mission with a name and frequencies and a controlling agency but we had no information on it; and neither did the Military Operations Specialist (MOS). The problem arose the first time we worked it; when we had no idea that it had a controlling agency. We cleared aircraft into W174 and capped them at FL280 for traffic; but the aircraft went to the controlling agency frequency when they entered the airspace; and they didn't know they were capped and thought they owned to FL350. Thankfully; we discovered the situation and acted to correct it before a problem arose. Later that evening the controlling agency ceased operations without informing us; and the aircraft came out to operate in the airspace with us (Miami ARTCC) acting as the controlling agency. I did not personally observe; but heard that at another time during the shift an aircraft was cleared into airspace that already had a fighter operating in it. The next day we were informed by the MOS that the airspace would be active. The controllers were informed; and showed the airspace hot. Three fighters came off looking to enter W174. We called the controlling agency but they were not controlling the airspace. The controllers at the sector asked who was controlling the airspace; and I called the MOS for clarification. We ended up clearing the aircraft in and acting as the controlling agency; but the situation was confused and caused disruption to the sector and even the area's operations. Missions operating in Miami ARTCC airspace should be pre-coordinated with the facility and the area affected. Paperwork should exist which spells out when the operation is expected to take place and who the controlling agency is. Flexibility is possible within defined parameters; but no activity should be allowed to take place without a clear procedure.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller described a very confused operational event involving military airspace including the coordination with the controlling agency; noting the lack of coordination within the facility referencing these types of operations.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
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)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The FA (Flight Attendant) -B - called me to report his suspicion about the behavior of [the] passenger occupying seat 16D. According to FA-B; the passenger had entered the aft lavatory carrying a jacket with him. The passenger had been in the lavatory for more than 10 minutes and flushed the toilet over 10 times. I contacted the CA (Captain) and informed him of the incident and the suspicion that the passenger was vaping in the lavatory. The CA informed me and [FA-B] that he was contacting the ground crew in ZZZ to report the incident.I made two announcements: one stating that the seat belt sign was on and any passenger away from his/her seat should return to their seats immediately and fasten their seat belts; the second announcement reminding passengers that smoking and using e-cigarettes and vaping is not allowed in the cabin and lavatories per federal laws. [The passenger] returned to his seat within two minutes. The CA made an announcement prior to landing requesting all passengers to remain seated until a GA (Gate Agent) boarded the aircraft to resolve a minor issue. I followed with an announcement stating that exceptionally on that flight; the fact that I would get up to open the door was not a signal that passengers could get up and that they should wait until the GA came aboard and after he/she left.While the GA dealt with the passenger in the cabin; the law enforcement officials asked me if the fire alarm went off and I responded that the fire alarm did not go off. They asked me if either FA actually saw the passenger vaping; I responded that we did not see the passenger vaping; informed that the lavatory had an odor familiar with vaping products. They also asked me if we had a witness; and I responded that we did not have a witness. They informed me that they could not do anything without any of the answers being positive. They advised that the GA could speak and warn the passenger; but law enforcement could not approach the passenger without solid evidence. The GA later reported that [the passenger] said that the reason he was in the lavatory for an extended period of time and flushed the toilet multiple times was due to the fact that he is Muslim and he was doing an act of purification.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Flight Attendant reported a passenger suspected of vaping in the lavatory.
Date: 202104
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had a near miss with another plane flying approximately 100 ft. above me. I was working with my radio at the time. I'm a high wing so I didn't see the other plane; but I had wondered why another ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast) equipped plane hadn't seen me. When I got back I requested the ADS-B report for my plane and it's not turning up with anything; meaning my ADS-B isn't working and my ADS-B in was probably showing me my plane on radar only. I'll be bringing my plane to an avionics shop to have it checked out.




Synopsis: Private pilot flying C-150 aircraft reported NMAC with another aircraft.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While climbing through FL280 the Fire Baggage Compartment light illuminated with the corresponding horn. Following the Emergency Checklist the First Officer went to the baggage compartment to check for fire. He noted a faint smell of smoke and a higher than normal temperature. He returned to the cockpit where we all agreed as a crew to land as soon as possible but in a safe controlled manner not as an emergency aircraft with the detection system not disarmed as per the checklist. We requested a diversion to ZZZ which was 10 km away and then began a non-emergency descent. When the power levers were pulled to idle and descending through 12000 MSL the fire light extinguished and remained off throughout the remainder of the flight and ground operations. After landing I stopped the aircraft after exiting the runway and personally went back to determine if we could taxi or needed to evacuate the aircraft due to fire or smoke. I found a faint white (haze) smoke hovering near the detector through the baggage light but no other signs of fire or colored smoke. We taxied to the FBO and the passengers deplaned. The Emergency Checklist leads a person to believe that with no fire the problem is with the detector. However; the detector is not heat based but a smoke based detection system. To disable the system by pulling the circuit breaker and continuing the flight is a possible major error when you have a bleed leak entering the pressurization system or fire /smoke in the forward service compartment. This compartment is where all of the bleeds enter the ACM and are plumbed into the cabin and baggage compartment ducting.




Synopsis: F2TH Captain experiences a baggage compartment fire warning climbing through FL280. The First Officer is sent back to investigate and can find no fire but there is some faint smoke and temperatures seem to be elevated. The Baggage Fire Checklist directs the crew to disable the baggage fire warning if there is no actual fire present and continue. The crew elects not to do this and diverts in a non emergency fashion.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Ramp RJAA
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: In a recent AOM revision the requirement to check the pilots' oxygen mask oxygen flow and mask microphone was removed from our normal operating procedures. I feel so strongly that a check of this critical piece of safe equipment is essential prior to every flight. Numerous fellow crew members and I have continued to do the check even though it's no longer SOP. On a recent international flight I discovered that my oxygen mask microphone was inoperative. I have no idea how many flights this aircraft had flown with this item being inoperative but it likely was many. Had an event occurred that required the oxygen masks to be donned the Captain would have had no way to establish crew communications; nor could he communicate with ATC as is required in several of our Emergency checklists. This would make a potentially difficult situation much more difficult and challenging; if not outright unsafe.




Synopsis: A B-777 Captain addressed his disagreement with his airline's decision to no longer require flight crews to test the functionality of the crew oxygen mask flow and microphone.  In support of his concern he detailed his discovery of an inoperative Oxygen mask microphone prior to an international flight.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A flight was taxiing by on the taxiway. [It] had an audible fire warning and flames coming out of the number 1 engine. We called our Tower via radio and via phone to our Company Airlines Tower and told them the aircraft had a back fire or engine fire and to have it come back to the gate. Our request was ignored and the aircraft continued taxi to the runway for take off. We called our Tower again and were ignored again. The aircraft took off before anyone took our concern seriously.




Synopsis: A Ramp Dispatcher reported they reported fire coming out of an aircraft's engine to their ramp controller who did not take action to notify the flight in a timely manner.
Date: 201604
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Once the aircraft was parked; nose-gear secured with chocks and arrival hand signal given; ground power was connected and enabled. For almost 3 minutes; the flight crew left the #2 (right) engine running; even though customers were deplaning. The ramp crew was kept away from the aircraft; per SOP. The flight crew did not shut down this running engine until given the 'cut engine'; hand signal by me; the ramp supervisor. When given this hand signal; it took only about 15 seconds to cut the engine. Only then; did normal ramp servicing commence after the aircraft was safe to approach.Events like this are the norm; rather than the exception for CRJ-700 crews. Some engines are left running for 5+ minutes.Prolonging the engine shut-down time impacts both employee safety and operational performance. The long shutdown time and the time constraint of short ground times; leads to unsafe employee behavior of approaching the aircraft with a running engine; if not managed properly by the employees. The most effective risk control is to eliminate one or more threats. Following ramp SOP eliminates one threat; and changing shut-down procedures eliminates the other threat.




Synopsis: Ramp Supervisor reported that their air carrier's CRJ-700 crews' seem to leave their right engine running long after ground power has been plugged in; jeopardizing ground safety.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger in [seat] X1 refused to wear a mask.  Dispatch was notified.  [Requested] aircraft [be met] upon arrival.  Landed without further incident.  I initially told Dispatch it was not a security threat level 1.  I was in a busy part of the flight and did not have time to look it up.  After landing; I reviewed the flight manual and realized it was a security threat level 1.  Either way; all security threat level one procedures were followed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger refused to comply with face mask policy.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Instructor pilot was demonstrating a soft-field landing to the student (me). We were cleared for touch and goes on the right runway and we were on a right downwind. After turning right base the Instructor announced that he saw traffic for the left runway (the Cherokee; however we did not know aircraft type). After completing roll out onto final; Instructor and student noticed the traffic for the left was rapidly drifting toward us. Instructor turned right and descended rapidly. When I looked back at the other aircraft it was where we would have been if the Instructor had not taken evasive action. Aircraft Y started a gradual climbing left turn. Instructor then called Tower and asked; 'Were we supposed to follow another aircraft or were we cleared for touch and goes?' Tower replied; 'You are number one and cleared for touch and goes.' Instructor stated; 'Another aircraft just flew past us and we almost had a mid air.' Tower replied; 'Was the aircraft a low wing?' Instructor replied; 'Yes.' Tower responded; 'The aircraft was a Piper Cherokee and he was on the ILS for the left runway; he just reported going missed.'




Synopsis: C172 student with instructor was turning final for the right runway and experiences a NMAC with a PA28 on the ILS for the left runway. The instructor takes evasive action and the PA28 goes around.
Date: 201412
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other pushback
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arriving for my 3rd bank trip of the morning to find no equipment prepared; I proactively began gate set up and prep work for a trip with a large outbound total. During the trip; at departure time; we received about 10 more last minute bags. I instructed my wing walkers to do a walk around while I scanned and closed out the trip. As the walk around was finishing; I got in the tug to push and try to ensure an on time departure. With my walk around complete; maintenance standing there and a supervisor present; I did not touch check my tow bar connections as is my routine pushback procedure. (I had connected it improperly). Upon pushback; the aircraft broke away from the push tug and travelled about 5-10 feet disconnected. I immediately contacted the pilot and instructed him to apply the brakes on the aircraft. We set the brakes; re-connected the towbar; continued the push. During the following push back; while straightening the aircraft; the shear pin snapped and I once again immediately halted the push. I contacted maintenance; to ensure no aircraft damage (the aircraft checked out as ok and departed). I then immediately reported the incident to my supervisor.




Synopsis: Pushback tug operator reported several problems during pushback procedure that resulted from deviation from ramp safety SOP.