elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CGZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E CGZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF CGZ
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was inbound to the CGZ airport; about 3 nm northeast. I reported my position on the CTAF and that I was planning a left downwind entry to the active runway; which was Runway 05. There was a fair number of trainer aircraft in the vicinity of the TFD VOR executing practice instrument approaches. A light twin announced that he was upwind of runway 5; then crosswind. Since I knew that his departure could result in a possible conflict; I maintained extra caution and vigilance. Even so; I did not see the northbound aircraft until it was above the horizon; about 1/8 mile away. There wasn't enough time for evasive action; the aircraft passed behind me. This kind of incident may be a precursor to possible in-flight collisions at this airport because of very heavy training activity with many non-standard operations. Exacerbating the situation was the fact that numerous training aircraft over the TFD VOR (8 miles southwest) were communication with each other with information on altitudes; distances from the fix; type of approaches they were doing; all on the CTAF for CGZ. All of this continuous radio chatter precluded my opportunity to announce my position as I entered downwind and may have been a factor as to why the other aircraft failed to see my aircraft.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that high traffic volume and frequency congestion at a non-towered airport resulted in a NMAC.
Date: 201510
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given 'descend via the PHLBO arrival' from Washington Center which meant to descend to 8000 ft while crossing certain fixes at or above specific altitudes. On the descent outside of STEFE intersection on the PHLBO arrival; we were encountering moderate turbulence. At some point when given 'descend via' on the arrival to 8000 ft; I didn't notice we left VNAV mode on the MCP in the descent while in the midst of asking the flight attendants to take their jump seats. The non-flying pilot was also occupied with Washington Center trying to get clearance to deviate around weather. Approaching STEFE; the restriction was to cross STEFE at or above 13;000 ft. Since the MCP was in LVL CHG mode due to my oversight; we were unfortunately at 9500 ft. Washington Center noted that we were 3500 ft lower than we were supposed to be.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported descending below a 'descend via' crossing restriction when the crew failed to note they were in Level Change rather than VNAV mode.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On or around [date] on Aircraft X; ZZZ-ZZZ1 a Captain wasn't wearing his mask ; I asked the Captain to please wear his mask if he wasn't eating or drinking and he complied. Passenger seated in front of the Captain wasn't wearing his mask as well. I asked the passenger and his wife to please wear their masks as well since they were watching a movie and 'NOT EATING NOR DRINKING!'' The passenger was seated in [seat] X4 and clearly didn't want to comply with the face mask policy. I received a complaint letter from this passenger who didn't want to wear a face mask when I was just doing my job. Other passengers in the cabin was complaining about the passenger in [seat] X4 who clearly wasn't wearing his mask over his nose and mouth. I made 1 announcement explaining our face covering policy.  The face mask policy announcement has since been changed to reflect the face mask must be worn except while eating or drinking for a brief moment.In the future I will report on any employee if they are non-compliant since employees set the tone and pace on the flight. When employees don't comply with policy or procedures passengers think they can do the same and not comply. The Airline should not ask employees to follow policy and procedures and when customers send in bad letters make employees accountable.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported a deadheading Captain and a passenger were non-compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on final and had two aircraft behind me in the left traffic pattern. Knowing I had to back-taxi after landing I set up for a short field landing so I could back-taxi and clear the runway in prompt fashion. Even though I had landed there before I completely forgot about the wires across the approach end of the runway. I was set up for a short field landing and saw the wires on short final. From my position and altitude; the safest decision at that point was to stay well below them and continue with my short field landing. I should have seen the poles holding them up. Perhaps I had a bit of 'target fixation.' If the wires had the usual red obstacle balls they would be much easier to see and avoid and could even serve as an aid to ensure vertical clearance.




Synopsis: RV6 pilot; who was set up for a short field landing at a small private grass strip; observed wires on final; flew underneath them and landed without incident.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: YIP.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
Airspace: Class D YIP
ATC / advisory: Tower YIP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I received a call from [the Aircraft] requesting taxi for departure. I taxied [the Aircraft] to the nearest runway and upon receiving a release from the TRACON; cleared [the Aircraft] for takeoff on the standard climb out. Shortly after departure; I was contacted by the departure controller who asked which runways we were using. Only then did I realize what we were advertising and I had departed [the Aircraft] opposite direction without coordination.I think there were a few factors in play. Expectation bias. The aircraft's destination was north; and the runway I assigned was by far the most convenient point for departure from a taxi standpoint. Normally this would have been stopped by any of a few factors; none of which were present here. Calling the aircraft to the Center flight data but data was closed; prevailing winds (winds had been calm all night); or existing traffic to the advertised runway (I had one VFR aircraft landing on a crosswind runway; and had not spoken to another aircraft all night).Although I did not feel especially tired; having rested both before and during the shift; it would be foolish to suggest that fatigue had nothing to do with an error occurring during a mid-shift; especially during the final hour of a mid-shift. I was preoccupied with sequencing my only other aircraft; such that [this particular Aircraft] could be departed without delaying for a slow VFR arrival.The biggest problem; at least in my mind; was the lack of a convenient indicator of which runway was in use during a low-traffic period where no other indicators were present to suggest the runway in use. The Information Display System-4 in the cab displays this information; but does so in small text directly behind the local controller on the opposite side of the cab. I believe any formally instituted visual aid or similar device that would have prevented this would be a hindrance during normal operations. Instead; I will write pertinent information on a flight strip in the future; such that it will be readily visible if these conditions recur.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported they allowed an aircraft to depart a different runway than what was coordinated with the TRACON.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMID.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center MMID
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL360; we encountered a MASTER CAUTION light with the FLT CONT and IRS lights illuminated on the System Annunciator Panel. The overhead panel had the SPEED TRIM light illuminated; and the aft overhead panel had IRS #2 FAULT light illuminated. We complied with the QRH and were unable to clear the IRS fault light. With this malfunction we also lost both autopilots; so after confirming with Company Dispatch that RVSM procedures were the same in Mexican airspace; we notified ATC of our 'unable RVSM due to equipment failure'. (We were with Merida Center) ATC acknowledged the failure and stated 'maintain 360'. We repeated the instructions and verified that they knew we had the equipment failure.Due to weather beneath us; as well as not wanting to face a possible international divert; due to insufficient fuel at a lower altitude; we opted to stay at FL360 and not request lower ourselves. We were also a bit concerned that the language barrier may have been preventing ATCs full understanding of our failure; which is why we made sure they understood our equipment situation. Traffic along our route was light; and we monitored TCAS very carefully to stay ahead of any traffic that would fly near us. We never experienced any difficulties with altitude or flight path control. When switched to Monterey Center; we informed them of the 'unable RVSM due to equipment failure' and were immediately told to descend to FL270. We flew the aircraft for two hours without autopilot; and without incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an IRS #2 fault at FL360 rendering both autopilots inoperative. Merida Center was advised 'unable RVSM due to equipment failure' and the crew was told to maintain FL360. When the crew advised the next ATC sector of the equipment problem; they were told to descend and maintain FL270.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OPF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower OPF
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying with a student doing a flight test; after takeoff we lost some power on the engine so we decided to land. We landed on Runway 9R as we were cleared to do. KOPF Tower cleared or aircraft to exit the Runway via taxiway G and the instruction was to continue taxi via G and hold short Runway 12. I replied the Tower and we continued. We were taxing the aircraft then the last thing that we felt was the JETBLAST of a B737 what caused the airplane to hit the propeller and the right wing into the ground. We never received any warning from OPF Tower to avoid it.


Second narrative: I was flying with an instructor testing an airplane. Shortly after landing; we were cleared by the Tower to taxi via Golf from Runway 9R and hold short Runway 12 at Golf. We taxied behind a B737 that was testing its engines and the jet blast pushed us off the taxiway; causing a prop strike; considerable damage to the wingtip and damage in the nose wheel fairing and possible flight control damage.


Synopsis: GA pilots reported a jet blast encounter at OPF airport.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final we experienced a BRAKING Auto Brake Fail ECAM at 3;000 feet on final. Elected to execute a go around; reviewed FM procedures; landing performance for worst case scenario (A/S failure). Declared emergency with Approach; determined best landing runway due to length and prevailing winds (300/18G24). Attempted contact with [Dispatch and Maintenance] via ACARS to no avail. [Maintenance] did send ACARS indicating a 1.45 additional landing factor if A/S failed. Flight attendants briefed to ensure they knew where their exits were and to identify possible helpers if landing resulted in runway excursion and evacuation necessary. Flew visual approach to uneventful landing; cleared and stopped with Alternate Brakes. After fire trucks inspected aircraft we elected to [stop] short of gate for tow-in. Tow-in and aircraft securing uneventful.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: A319 flight crew reported they got ECAM for 'BRAKING - AUTO BRAKE FAIL' on final. They elected to declare an emergency; go around and review the procedures; and landed normally with alternate brakes.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Two passengers; traveling together; in seats; X1 and X2; were wearing non-compliant masks. FA C noticed the non-complaint masks in main cabin when I was beginning the safety announcement. From the front of plane; I could see the couple arguing with FA C and refusing to put the company provided masks that Flight Attendant was offering. I approached passengers; with FA C still present; and asked them to wear the compliant masks; and they initially refused me as well. I then asked them to make a decision to wear the compliant masks; or we would be required to return the plane to the gate. They complied. We took off. Once at cruise phase; the gentleman in X1 stopped me and started to engage me as to how he has been allowed to wear those masks on previous flights and that they were safer masks. I responded that he could reach out to customer care and write to the FAA about the masks they were wearing.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported two passengers traveling together were wearing non-compliant face masks and initially refused to wear company supplied compliant face masks.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying the TRTLL1 arrival at 11000 ft. I was assigned heading 062 and flying the assigned airspeed of 250 kts near MONKZ which had us heading straight at EBENS intersection and given descent to 7000 ft. I was then cleared to 4000 ft and was slowing with speed brake deployed. At 232 kts asked for flaps 1. Then ATC cleared us down to 3300 ft and told [us] we were getting a short approach. As we entered the cloud deck the airspeed went toward the 240 kt limit and I clicked off the auto pilot to avoid overspeed. While trying to hand fly; the controller gave us a 360 degree heading. There was no lateral flight guidance and I was doing a shallow turn towards the north and my copilot was trying to get the automation back. I leveled off to keep from over speeding the flaps; then continued down. The controller then asked us to climb to 6000 ft and I had the gear down and headed down and tried to climb manually. Then the controller gave us an immediate turn to 280 degrees while we were climbing to 6000 ft. By then we were north of the cloud deck and cleared for a visual. Then the controller insisted on giving us a phone number while trying to configure the aircraft. While the copilot was writing down the phone number I configured the airplane and the copilot completed the landing check list at about 1200 ft AGL. We had an uneventful landing. [Suggest] not having planes land on the South runway coming from the North and not have airplanes coming from the South land on the North runway. Short approaches in IFR conditions are very challenging.


Second narrative: If ATC has a need or requires us to perform to certain expectations a heads up would be beneficial so we can meet their expectations. The earlier the better.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported ATC became unhappy with them during a complex arrival into ORD.