elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 34 departures. 21 on north side.....11 in horseshoe...1 757. 6 arrivals holding ( 4 for horseshoe). Aircraft came to maintenance. BP Full6 supertugs calling to come to gate as soon as it opened regardless of alley trafficAircraft X blew taxiway Kilo ; good thing I was looking out window.With the amount of aircraft physically on my taxi ways my attention needed to be looking out the window making sure everyone was following my instructions ; if my attention was not focused looking at window Aircraft X would have caused a nose to nose. Therefore when I had a second I looked at the pushback screen; this resulting in delays; I still had to have a list of flights that called that I need to hold and try to integrate the two lists in order that the aircraft called




Synopsis: Ramp controller reported preventing a nose to nose situation at a major airport during a particularly heavy workload time.
Date: 202105
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Proceeding directly to ZZZZZ intersection on the ZZZZZ 2 RNAV arrival. Was cleared to descend via ZZZZZ 2 RNAV arrival on [Runway] XXR. Prior to ZZZZZ; at approximately FL220 during descent; noticed that the cabin altitude was at 8;300 feet and increasing. I called attention to the First Officer that we might be losing cabin pressurization. The Pressurization screen on ECAM was displayed and noticed that both the inlet and extract valve were fully closed but the safety valve had opened.Since we had already been cleared to descend via ZZZZZ arrival and had an altitude of 12;000 set in the MCP I decided to expedite the descent to see if I could control the rate of ascent in the cabin. At approximately FL180 it appeared that we could not control the rate of ascent in the cabin and that at its present rate the cabin would exceed 10;000 feet shortly. I then [advised] with ATC and requested 10;000 feet which was granted. I advised the Lead Flight Attendant that we were experiencing cabin pressurization problems but to expect a normal landing. As we leveled at 10;000 feet I monitored the cabin and noticed that it had climbed to 12;000 feet but stabilized. It took several minutes before the cabin normalized at our cruise altitude of 10;000 feet. I asked the First Officer  to see if he could find an applicable checklist to run. During this time I maintained control of the aircraft and communicated with ATC. The First Officer advised that he was able to manually control the outflow valve and that the checklist recommended shallow descents thereafter. I continued to ask for delayed vectors from ATC just north of ZZZ as the First Officer and I reviewed the state of the aircraft and decided it was safe to proceed with the landing. I asked ATC for shallow descents on the arrival to [Runway] XXR into ZZZ. The landing and taxi in were uneventful.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported malfunctioning pressurization system on descent.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were filed on the FRDMM ONE RNAV ARRIVAL into DCA. When I reviewed this arrival prior to leaving ZZZ I knew with the forecast winds it would not be flyable. My Dispatcher was unable to refile me on anything better because the old arrivals had been removed.The FRDMM ONE; THE NUMMY ONE; AND THE TRUPS ONE ARRIVALS INTO DCA are dangerous. THE AARCH ONE AND KAYLA ONE RNAV ARRIVALS INTO STL are dangerous! These procedures are going to cause deviations and violations! They are not safe! Take one look at them; If you don't get why they are not safe you should not be involved in aviation! I've got more important things to do descending into high density environments in all kinds of weather than try to comply with a computer geek's idea of a standard terminal arrival! You got to be kidding me! How the FAA ever let these things out is totally beyond me.

Callback: The reporter advised he is flying MD-80 aircraft that require intensive flight crew monitoring and frequent intervention to attempt to comply with the multiple and closely spaced waypoint restrictions common to these STARs. He further advised of first hand reports from pilots of aircraft with more 'sophisticated autoflight capability' who have suffered equally frustrating encounters with the procedures. He was curious as to how the procedures were test flown or otherwise vetted for flight crew/autoflight system friendliness prior to their implementation because his opinion is that they could not have been test flown and approved by line airmen encountering them for the first time. The reporter was particularly concerned that alternative procedures previously user friendly for his aircraft are being removed and only the new procedures; incompatible with his aircraft's capability; remain; leaving few alternatives for a non-disruptive arrival into those airports.



Synopsis: An MD-80 Captain described concerns regarding the implementation of complex optimized descent procedures into DCA and STL; stressing the concurrent removal of previously active STARs which were compatible with his fleet's autoflight/FMS capabilities; the result of which places excessive demands on the flight crew.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Push Back
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After push crew advised ready; push clearance received from Ground Control; and brakes were released: push crew said they were having a problem with the tug and to set the parking brake. I set the brake and canceled our push clearance with Ground Control. Then; another voice came on the intercom and said they needed to open the cargo doors to move bags from the aft cargo to the forward cargo to comply with Hazmat loading requirements.We had not received a 'Planned DG Notification' message during preflight and contacted XXX Station Ops. They said we would get the notification with the final weights when they were done loading. Approximately 15 minutes later; the ground crew re-closed the baggage compartments. When we received the final weights; we still did not have a dangerous goods notification. Somewhere in the conversation with the ground crew and Operations; lithium-ion batteries were mentioned as being the item in question. I inquired with Station Ops again; and after a couple of minutes they advised the Hazmat (dangerous goods) on board did not require pilot notification. FOM 9.10.1 says that pilots are to be notified of dangerous goods except for 'those items exempt from notification;' so we continued with our flight with the assumption that the dangerous goods were among the exempt items.Why would a dangerous goods items requiring defined separation in the cargo compartments not be a required notification? If an item is such a hazard; that it has to be loaded in a specific manner; shouldn't the pilots be aware of its existence via the DG Notification process?




Synopsis: B757-200 Captain reported being notified that DG onboard did not require flight crew notification due to being classified as 'exempt from crew notification.'
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HKS.Airport, MS
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D HKS
ATC / advisory: TRACON JAN; Tower HKS
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flying Aircraft X; 2000 feet from the north to Hawkins Field in Jackson Mississippi. We were being worked by Jackson Approach and at about 3.1 miles out from Hawkins Field we were told to contact Hawkins tower and squawk VFR. We did so and said to tower we were with you at 2000 feet landing Hawkins Field and then tower ask us how far out we were. At that time we were about 2.9 miles out and then heard tower say to a helicopter taking off do you have the traffic north of the field? At which time helicopter responded; 'I do not have a traffic.' We then responded on the radio we have the helicopter insight and we made a turn to the right and then the helicopter said; 'That I have the traffic and turned to the right. His right which was away from us. Tower then said that Aircraft X was in the wrong place. Then tower said to us that we should have contacted the sooner. Our response was we were being worked by Jackson Approach and was just handed off to them which was Hawkins tower. Controller then said we were number two in line for downwind 34. No other issues and a normal landing was made.It was our understanding that we were being handled by Jackson Approach and saw no reason to contact Hawkins Tower before we were told to do so and believed they were coordinating with each other as we have landed at that airport many times.




Synopsis: Pilot receives flight following from Approach Control. Pilot is told to squawk VFR and contact the Tower at 3.1 miles from the airport. Pilot calls Tower and Controller advises pilot that he should have called them earlier. Pilot responded that they were under flight following and Approach told them to call when they did.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Several times during my flight I had to inform customer about the company face covering policy. During boarding I informed customer about company face covering policy. After the beverage service while I was picking up used service items I told passenger that his mask needed to cover his nose as well as his mouth. During my cabin security walk throughs; I reminded the passenger about the face covering policy. During seat belt compliance checks I also had to remind customer about company face covering policy. I consulted a member of my crew. The A Flight Attendant was informed and the Captain notified. The Captain made a PA announcement. Then the customer was given a warning. The flight continued with no further incident.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger would not comply with face mask policy during flight.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
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 A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Three aircraft all coming from DEN Sector 09 were in potential conflict. We were not taking the hand off from DEN 09 because the aircraft were not separated. DEN called for a hand off and they asked if we wanted them to spin the aircraft in conflict. We said we wanted them to separate them. They said they would spin them. We just said our control? We had to turn two of the aircraft one 20 degrees left; and one ended up turning 35 degrees right. The sector already had 20+ aircraft and was busy with a D-side. Altitude could have worked but could have created a situation later down the road.I would like DEN 09 to separate aircraft coming from them to our sector. If they can't see this traffic then they need to have further training.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported ZDV Center attempted to hand off three aircraft that were in potential conflict.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was engaged in D-Side training on Sector 8. Aircraft X called on the ground from DIJ airport requesting an IFR clearance. At the time we had numerous JAC arrivals and an overflight at 170. We called Sector 16 to APREQ the departure headed to the east to BOY. Sector 16 approved the aircraft climbing to FL290. To alleviate any conflict with traffic and terrain; we issued the LAMON TWO Departure which takes the aircraft to the northwest to gain altitude prior to turning east. An altitude of 160 was issued and a void time given.Aircraft X departed some minutes later and we immediately recognized that the aircraft was not flying the assigned departure and was headed into high terrain still climbing. The R-Side controller advised the pilot of a low altitude alert and asked [if] they were flying the LAMON Departure in which the pilot said yes. Clearly; they were not and continued east into even higher terrain. Another low altitude alert was issued and the controller asked if the pilot had the terrain in sight in which they responded yes. During the time of the 2 low altitude alerts; the aircraft was in an MIA of 134 and subsequently 158.A departure procedure was issued to the pilot for both terrain and traffic. If a DP or SID is issued; the pilot needs to comply.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reported a pilot not following the SID and entering low terrain twice.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was informed that a Cessna 172 filed a NMAC. I am now filing a report as well. A B737 was descending on [a STAR] landing ZZZ. The C172 was VFR southbound between ZZZ and [an airspace fix] at 105. Traffic was called to both aircraft about 7 miles apart. The B737 had the traffic on the TCAS and I believe the VFR said; 'Roger.' The C172 said he was starting his VFR descent. Tower called yelling and arguing pointout approved. During the call; I heard the B737 say that he was responding to a RA. Later the C172 apologized for losing sight or slow descent; I am not sure which. I should have never answered the line. I should have continued the traffic calls or stopped the B737.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a NMAC event between an IFR air carrier arrival and a VFR overflight; the reporter acknowledging he/she should have issued traffic in lieu of answering the landline.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 40
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Delivering a 182 for buyers inspection for a friend/student pilot. I followed him on the walk around & watched to help him get familiar w/the process. When he did the fuel visually he said the tanks were full. I did not check this. When I checked the gauge it did not show full but the owner's son said they were bad gauges. Uneventful flight till the confluence of [two] rivers; we ran out of gas. I made an off airport landing on a gravel bar. I was able to contact a friend to call ATC and let them know all's well and bring us fuel. There was no damage and after adding 20 gallons of gas we continued. I know now I should have checked the filler tops myself; I trusted that he could see fuel and he even showed fuel on his finger. I later see that this fuel system is quite different than my 185. Lesson learned.




Synopsis: A C182 pilot reported running out of fuel in flight resulting in a forced landing with no damage or injuries.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other Landing Rollout
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Exiting Runway 26L onto A6; the Tower Controller issued an alert for wildlife on Runway 26R. I instinctively slowed my taxi speed and came to a gradual stop on the high speed exit and began to scan for any hazards. After 20-30 seconds; with no further instructions for us; we heard the Controller send Company around. He then explained that we had not completely cleared the hold short line; then cleared us to cross [Runway] 26R and contact Ground.Improve distraction management discipline by assuring thorough completion of the task at hand; at the time of the distraction; before diverting attention to the threat. Consciously heighten situational awareness of aircraft state and location in the knowledge that situational awareness invariably breaks down in any non-normal situation. Also; actively solicit fellow Crew Member input for back up in this process.


Second narrative: Exiting Runway 26L onto A5; the Tower issued a wildlife alert on Runway 26R. Captain then brought the aircraft to a stop while we looked for animals /hazards. After about 20 seconds with no Tower instructions; we heard Tower send Company aircraft around. He then said we had not fully cleared the runway hold short line and proceeded to clear us to cross 26R and contact Ground.Improve distraction management by assuring task at hand (clearing runway) is finished before diverting attention to the threat.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported runway incursion after landing.