elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Low ceilings and fog were forecasted all day at SEA. In the evening; Traffic Management Unit (TMU) initiated metering twice without any advanced notice. There was a lot of confusion between TMU; management; and adjacent Sectors (01/31). TMU put out a notice that metering was going to begin at XA:00. At XA:00 there was no meter list displayed on the scope so I called TMU. They seemed overwhelmed and confused. They ultimately said that we were not going to meter however this message was not relayed to the supervisor or anyone else. Controllers from Sector 01/31 said to send aircraft in that approach was taking aircraft even though the RVRs were low they said aircraft were getting in. The supervisor came by and said that we needed to be holding these aircraft according to TMU. Then TMU put out a message that we were going to metering with speeds and to expect 30 minute delays. There was no advanced notice of this.The biggest problem is the lack of communication. TMU; management and the controllers are all being given different information and no one is communicating with each other. Pilots had no idea what to expect because they were given information that turned out to be false. Multiple aircraft were diverting due to fuel concerns and a lack of solid information. We need to do a better job of effectively communicating so we can give the pilots the most up to date and accurate information so they know what to expect and can make good decisions when it comes to whether they need to divert or not. A lot of this rests with TMU knowing what the forecasted weather is going to be and having a plan to implement when the time comes.




Synopsis: ATC Center Controller reported traffic management initiatives during a known weather event were late and insufficient to help manage the traffic flows to the airport.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During maneuvers in practice area; we were practicing stalls going from south to north. The practice area frequency was monitored and all our radio calls were made for location; direction of flight; altitude; and maneuver type. No conflict was identified from other aircraft. Upon completion of the stall; we got a traffic alert for an aircraft traveling northwest to southeast at our 11 o'clock 500 feet above us. They didn't make any radio calls before; during; or after the event. I took the flight controls and performed a 180-degree descending turn to south; 1000 feet below our altitude. This solved the traffic conflict.The traffic crossed through the practice area and wasn't on our frequency as far as we could tell. I should have maintained more vigilant attention to traffic de-conflicting; both visually and with the ADS-B. Going forward I will double-check for traffic with a visual scan and verify with the ADS-B. Even if traffic is clear to begin a maneuver; it may be a conflict by its completion. If a similar situation arises in the future; I will adjust heading and altitude prior to starting the maneuver.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported another aircraft in the training area provided no radio communication throughout the event as the other aircraft passed 500 feet overhead resulting in an NMAC and triggering a traffic alert.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing my commercial check ride. The Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) asked me to do a short field landing. We were coming in on the approach and it was stable and on the glideslope. I tried to land on the 500 foot marker; but when I flared; I landed on all 3 wheels on the runway at the same time. My nose gear collapsed and the propellers hit the ground. The airplane lost directional control and went into the grass.




Synopsis: The pilot of a PA-34 reported a nose landing gear collapse; propeller strike; and runway excursion occurred during a check ride after landing flat on all 3 tires.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was commuting to work and sat about five rows from the rear by the window.  After arriving at the gate and waiting to deplane I overheard a Passenger make a comment to the B Flight Attendant.  The Passenger said that she had never paid attention to the flight deck door opening for the Pilots bathroom break before until now. She was happy to see that a Flight Attendant went into the flight deck.  At that point the B Flight Attendant commences to tell the Passenger all of our security procedures; in the Operations binder section; in detail. The aircraft was full and there were a lot of Passengers listening.




Synopsis: A commuting pilot reports overhearing a Flight Attendant discussing company security procedures with a passenger.
Date: 201703
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The [passenger] had a razor blade out during the taxi out. The lead was informed and she contacted the captain. He asked that we take the razor blade from him and hold it up front till we land. TSA met the aircraft; we handed over the razor and introduced the passenger to them. [Passenger] was very cooperative the whole time.




Synopsis: A flight attendant reported that a passenger had a razor blade out.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was assigned to change [Cabin Passenger Doors] 4-Left (L4) and 4-Right (R4) Door slides. Had Maintenance Manual reference in hand and used reference during maintenance. After slide was changed; verified all door operations were in order and operating properly; however I was complacent in continuing on with the Maintenance Manual reference after all Operational Checks verified normal. The last step after the complete installation was done is to 'check Emergency Power Assist System (EPAS) reservoir pressure gage' to verify correct pressure level in bottle. I did not see that subtask listed at the time and moved on about my day. The reason the slide was being changed is because it was previously deployed. Maintenance personnel detected the low bottle pressure at the gate prior to revenue flight. The event occurred due to my complacency in not fully reading the Maintenance Manual reference all the way through until the next section (task). I did have the manual reference in hand during the maintenance and read it thoroughly step by step while accomplishing the install of the new slide. After the slide was installed and checks normal; I just figured that was completed and felt comfortable about it being done. I have never changed a slide before after it had been blown and for whatever reason it just didn't occur to me to check the EPAS bottle. Normally I am very conscientious about these things and yesterday I was not. I will read the entire section of the task at hand when performing maintenance to ensure all checks are completed as required.


Second narrative: Overlooked step in Maintenance Manual (M/M). Working with more then one Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT); overlooked M/M step. When working with more than one AMT; I should also read the M/M. Aircraft was taken out of service.


Synopsis: Two mechanics and one Inspector report about an Emergency Power Assist System (EPAS) bottle that was not re-serviced on a B777-200 aircraft after a slide replacement. The same slide also fell out of the slide pack the next day at the gate due to a foreign object.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ANC.ARTCC, AK
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On descent and approach in to ZZZ the aircraft was struck by lightning. We obtained a clearance to discontinue the [approach] and proceed to ZZZZZ for the [approach] to ZZZ1. After discussing with Dispatch we learned ZZZ1 lost all power so we decided to make the new divert to KTN. We landed in KTN without further incident.The event in and of itself was not complicated as we did not experience any anomalies with the aircraft after the lightning strike. The situation just became a little more complex when getting several clearances for different divert airports and eventually just heading there to land. Just a good refresher on how fast situations can change in SE with fuel always a major consideration.




Synopsis: Captain reported lightning strike caused a diversion to second alternate due to power failure at first alternate airport.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I witnessed the event that took place on another sector. The controller vectored a [an aircraft] off the STAR for sequencing. When the controller achieved more than enough spacing; he turned the aircraft direct to a fix and issued them a descend via clearance. I thought the aircraft was direct to a different fix so I did not say anything. Issuing a descend via clearance from that location does not protect for the Minimum IFR Altitude. The controller should have issued a crossing restriction of 11;000 feet; then descend via. The controller needs more practice and is not safe to work on their own.




Synopsis: ZSE Center Controller reported they observed another Controller issue a clearance which placed an aircraft below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately 10 NM southwest of TADPO; Havana Center handed us off to Miami Center. On initial contact we were given a new squawk code by Miami. After crossing TADPO we made a position report since we were not told RADAR CONTACT. Miami responded by telling us that we had entered an active military operating area. We were then told to squawk 7700. Miami gave us an assigned heading out of the airspace toward MTH. Miami reported that we were not on our assigned route which they showed us filed over MTH instead of EYW. The clearance we received from Havana was the EPRIM1.TADPO then as filed. Our flight plan was direct to EYW.J41.RSW...... After exiting the military airspace we were recleared direct to RSW and given a new squawk. There was no further mention of the incident by Miami ATC.




Synopsis: An air carrier departed MUHA Airport on the EPRIM1.TADPO Departure then EYW; but ZMA notified them upon check in that they were in an active military area; to squawk 7700 and given an exit vector.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Weather elements / visibility: 70
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechcraft Twin Turboprop or Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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 Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We took off and contacted Departure control.  Right away we got a clearance that said: Cleared Direct ROKIT.  Our flight plan was filed via the ROKIT 1 arrival into HOU; so when the controller said cleared  direct ROKIT; both the Captain and I without any doubt thought it was direct to ROKIT intersection that is in the beginning of the ROKIT 1 arrival.  We fly this arrival every week; and very often get clearance direct ROKIT.  About 30 minutes later;  a Controller at Atlanta Center asked if we were going direct to ROKIT; we said yes; then he said it doesn't look like it.  I replied that we were going direct to ROKIT; a straight line; and that we appeared to be 495 miles from it.  I spelled out R O K I T.  The Controller came back and said; that the [previous] Controller must had meant ROKIT which is RQZ VOR; and that apparently was located on the Q route.  The Controller now asked us to go to AEX for the ROKIT 1 arrival; AEX is just one fix before ROKIT.




Synopsis: Turboprop First Officer reports being cleared direct ROKIT waypoint shortly after takeoff and proceeding direct.  Some time later ATC questions the heading and it is discovered that the previous Controller had meant direct Rocket VOR (RQZ).
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Operating Part 121 Supplemental charter flight. While performing preflight paperwork with passengers on board 10 minutes prior to scheduled departure time; I received a phone call from Dispatch advising me not to depart due to the aircraft being under maintenance. Unbeknown to myself and my crew; I was advised that the Maintenance Director grounded the aircraft due to a discrepancy related to the windshield installed in the flight deck. No entry was found documented in the current aircraft logbook regarding prior maintenance performed on the windshield.Two [Part] 121 revenue flights were completed this flight day prior to being notified of a discrepancy with the aircraft.Passengers were deplaned and the aircraft was swapped with one located at remote parking.




Synopsis: SF340B Captain reported being advised just before departure that the aircraft was being grounded to a maintenance issue related to a cockpit window. Reporter stated the aircraft logbook did not reflect the discrepancy and the aircraft had already operated two flights earlier in the day.
Date: 201311
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The CRJ-700 flight crew had initially contacted me and asked to speak with Maintenance but; the call was dropped during the transfer. I then sent an ACARS message to the crew to try contacting me again via phone line. This was not done. An ACARS was then sent to me stating 'IFSD'. At that point the computer reflected a change in their destination. I sent an amended release to the crew based on this. Shortly after this the crew sent an ACARS advising they were diverting. I sent a second amended release and followed up with the weather and NOTAMs. Once on the ground; the Captain called and briefed me on the situation. He stated that the engine oil quantity went below 15% and that they were required to land at the nearest suitable airport. We briefly went over what the AOM had advised him to do in-flight and determined that we had followed the proper steps. I then transferred him to Maintenance Control. The next day I was advised by the [Dispatch] Supervisor that the crew had [performed] an engine shutdown in-flight. We then figured out that his ACARS message acronym 'IFSD' indeed meant 'In-Flight Shut Down'.While acronyms are extremely useful in this industry; if we are all not on the same page of what each means there can be disconnects. Crews should clearly specify what their intentions are during an emergency situation and avoid using acronyms that may cause confusion.




Synopsis: An air carrier Dispatcher was surprised when a CRJ-700 flight crew diverted to a nearby airport after sending an ACARS message advising only 'IFSD.'