elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Assigned heading and altitude during arrival; ATC notified us of a low altitude alert as PM (Pilot Monitoring) and PF (Pilot Flying) agreed that they were too low and arrested the decent. ATC assigned a new altitude and heading that was immediately complied with via assuming manual control. The flight returned to a safe altitude and completed an uneventful approach and landing. I believe [that] during the read back; the PM transposed heading 170 and 9;000 feet assigned with heading 190 and 7;000 feet assigned. The FCP was selected to heading 190 and 7;000 feet in the altitude window. Better monitoring by the PF could have helped mitigate this transposition. Also when both the PF and PM questioned the apparent low altitude; a more immediate halt of the descent and a query to ATC would have been the most appropriate course of action.


Second narrative: After descending via the KOHOE3; Denver Approach gave us a vector heading and altitude assignment for Runway 35R. We believe the clearance was descent and maintain 9;000 and turn to heading 170. Unfortunately I transposed the instructions in my head and thought we were cleared down to 7;000 and a heading of 190. ATC issued a low altitude alert to us and we immediately climbed to the assigned altitude and heading. We were then cleared [for the] approach and landed without incident.The primary cause for this event was not getting the clearance correct and neither I nor my Pilot Flying caught it in time before ATC corrected us. It was also the last flight of a long and challenging day. I need to perfect situational awareness as Pilot Monitoring and make sure something like this never happens to myself or my crew again. It was definitely a big learning experience. If I have any doubt on an instruction I will make sure to clarify it with ATC immediately.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported experiencing miscommunication that led to a low altitude alert.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Rain; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was flying visually from ZZZ along the shoreline to ZZZ1. The entire flight except for the last ten miles was VFR. I was using my ADSB to check on the weather and airport conditions the entire route. Up until the last few miles ZZZ1 was reported as VFR. As I approached within 20 miles the airport flag switched from VFR to MVFR. I had been trying to contact the Control Tower but I heard no response. I did hear another plane ask to land under SVFR. I finally able to contact ZZZ1. They told me that they had heard one of my previous calls but I didn't hear them. At that point they told me the field was now IFR and told me to contact ZZZ2 which I did intending to file an IFR approach plan. I contacted ZZZ2 and they told me to contact ZZZ3. By that time I was entering cloud cover and attempted to turn back but I momentarily lost control due to severe wind shear and dropped about 500 feet before I was able to recover. I became somewhat disoriented as my autopilot wasn't working correctly and I required ATC to help me escape my predicament. I regained control of the plane; was expertly directed by ZZZ3 ATC and was able to safely land at ZZZ4. As an aside; I called out to ZZZ3 multiple times stating that I needed help but they were so busy with all the other traffic it wasn't until after I momentarily lost control of the plane that they finally realized that I was in trouble and then devoted their attention to me. I thank them for that but a more timely response by ATC in general allowing me to file IFR would have prevented the subsequent events. And; yes; if I had asked earlier it could have been averted too but there were no issues until the very end so there was very little time by either party to have resolved the issues sooner.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported difficulties during heavy weather and turbulence; requiring ATC help and a diversion.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: ZZZ
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: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: More and more lately; First Officers (FO) are making the call 'Speed Checks' before moving the flap handle; after being asked for a configuration change during approach. This is a non-standard term; is not in the books; violates sterile cockpit rules; and distracts the Pilots during critical phases of flight. For a while I thought it was a one-off call; but more and more lately; most new FO are making the call. When asked why; they claim that's how they are trained. Some of these FO are previous Pilots from another carrier; some are [armed forces] folks; but all are relatively new and claim to have been trained to verbalize the term 'Speed Checks'. There is nothing in our manuals about saying 'Speed Checks'. In fact; our AOM specifically requires Pilots to repeat verbatim that when 'flaps 5' is called; to repeat 'flaps 5'. Not say 'speed checks; flaps 5'. Publish a briefing bulletin and emphasis in training the use of standard terminology; or change training and publications to reflect what the FO are doing; I'm easy; just pick one.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain noted some new first officers are making a verbal call 'Speed Checks' before moving the flap hand during approach. The procedure is non standard and distracting.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: F51.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM F51
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The sky was clear and the sun was low and bright as I approached F51 from the southwest for planned fuel stop. It had rained significantly the night before with standing water visible in fields in the area. The airport appeared to have a wide water-soaked grass/dirt strip parallel what I mistook to be a narrow blacktop runway. I circled the airport to observe the windsock and noted that the winds were out of the NW favoring Runway 1. There were no visible runway markings other than a narrow white line on the blacktop. The approach to landing was high; so I initiated a slip to steepen my descent. Touchdown was bit long but otherwise uneventful. It wasn't until I started braking that I realized I had landed on the taxiway parallel to Runway 1. After landing I continued to taxi to the fuel pumps and shut down. Upon exiting the aircraft; I walked to the end of Runway 19 to look for any markings and found very faded stripping and numbers that were nearly invisible on the wet hard surface. The wet surface appeared quite brown vs black. Following fueling; I taxied on parallel taxiway to the end of Runway 1 where I again observed very faint and hard to distinguish markings on the wet surface. Takeoff and departure on Runway 1 was normal. In reviewing this unintended landing on a taxiway; I believe the following were contributing factors:1) unfamiliarity with this airport2) higher than normal approach with slip to landing was distracting my full attention to the landing surface3) Rain soaked surface of Runway 1 make it look like wet grass or dirt4) The wet Runway 1 markings were not clearly visible...needs repainting5) The blacktop of taxiway with its white centerline stripe appeared to look like a narrow runway with wide grass/dirt strip next to it.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported inadvertently landing at F51 airport taxiway parallel to the runway of intended landing. The runway surface was rain-soaked and the markings were not clearly visible and in need of repainting; and the taxiway had a white centerline stripe; all of which contributed to the event.
Date: 202007
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
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a passenger come on board with his family. ZZZ CSA [Customer Service Agent] asked if he had a mask at the gate. When she said he needs to wear one. He said 'I just don't want to.' CSA explained to the family that he can't fly then. He then said he will wear his mask. I was told all the above information from the CSA in ZZZ. He has not once put on his mask. When we tell him to put on a mask he says 'I'm still snacking.' As FA B I've been observing and I have yet to see him take a bite of food. He's made his intentions clear that he will not be wearing a mask by him pretending to continue snacking the entire flight. By the middle of the flight he stopped pretending to snack and made it clear he won't be wearing a mask.I confronted the passenger for the last time. Passenger has been told at least 5 times at this point. I've also made many announcements about the mask policy as well. I informed him he needs to put on a mask and that it is policy . Also told him that he was aware of the policy when he purchased the ticket. I had to repeat all that multiple times. He would continue to argue. He said he will not be putting on a mask; that a mask does more harm than good. His wife interrupted and started to argue as well. At this point I said it is policy and I will be informing the Captain. I called the Captain and he contacted ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger refused to wear a face mask during the flight.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On rotation noticed odor smell from eyeball outlet on Captain side. Dissipated quickly. Check systems and noticed a Right 'HP' valve open on right engine and pack on 'Low'. Could not change pack output. Dispatch and Maintenance notified.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported fumes emanating from the Captain's side vents that dissipated shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Navigation Light
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was being towed on active taxiway with no personnel in the cockpit. No nav or anti-collision light were displayed. Safety Concern. Airport's Dept. of Aviation rules and regs state that aircraft towing on active taxiways should be performed by licensed aircraft mechanics. A mechanic should be in the flight deck during towing to ride brakes.




Synopsis: A Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports observing a Regional jet aircraft that was towed on an active taxiway at an Airport without Navigation or Anti-collision lights on and no personnel in the cockpit.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: O69.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G O69
ATC / advisory: CTAF O69
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The active runway was 29. I was on base leg with my student; there were 3 other planes in the pattern and 4 waiting for takeoff at the end of the runway when Aircraft Y did an apparent go around from [Runway] 11 and cut right in front of me. This distance was 300 ft or less and caused me to use evasive action. They had not used the radio at all. Then they asked what was the active runway. I told them; then they lined up for Runway 23 which we do not have; for landing. The pattern was very busy and if they had flown over the field they easily could have seen what runway was the active. This was witnessed by all the planes at the 29 end that were waiting for takeoff.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported a NMAC with an aircraft that was not flying the correct pattern.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Recirculation Fan
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL390 both pilots simultaneously experienced very strong chemical odor/fumes. We both could feel it quickly affecting our lungs. We both went on oxygen; declared an emergency; turned towards a nearby airport and began running the smoke and fume checklist. We notified Dispatch via ACARS of a divert; requested fire and rescue meet us. We checked the weather at the divert airport and proceeded direct runway for a visual approach.

Callback: The reporter stated that the Forward Recirculation Fan failed without any indication nor did the circuit breaker pop.

Second narrative: [This report contained no additional information].


Synopsis: A B767-300 Forward Recirculation Fan failed in flight causing very strong chemical odor/fumes so; after donning oxygen masks; an emergency was declared and the flight diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: EICAS/EAD/ECAM
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff out of Airport ZZZZ passing 8000 FT on we received R ENG FIRE and FLAP red EICAS messages; followed shortly by L ENG FIRE.  Looked immediately to fire handles; they were not lit.  EGTs (Exhaust Gas Temperature) showed normal for both engines.  A host of EICAS messages suggested an electrical malfunction (additional messages included CABIN PRESSURE; MAIN CARGO DOOR; among others.)  CA [notified ATC] and we immediately returned to field.  Fire trucks met the aircraft and reported no sign of fire.Possible electrical or EICAS computer malfunction.




Synopsis: B757-200 First Officer reported multiple false alerts; including false engine fire warnings; from a probable EICAS malfunction.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute
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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Staffing; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: There were two events that happened at almost the same time; so I am putting them in the same report. Aircraft X was level at 10000 feet deviating for weather then went non-radar. We have been instructed that this constitutes a deviation that we need to declare on behalf of the pilot.  Due to workload; the Radar Controller was unable to do this.  A few minutes later the pilot informed us they were back on course; which also constitutes an emergency; then requested direct [fix] which again is an emergency situation all due to being non radar.  There was a significant weather line west of the pilot's track. Their filed routing was obvious for the weather; so we gave direct [fix] knowing that the pilot has the best and most accurate view of the weather they can see out their window.  The Radar Controller called the weather to the aircraft as best as possible. We never declared an emergency due to the amount of traffic in the sector.Shortly after Aircraft Y on the same route was level at 10000 feet then we lost radar; the pilot then requested weather deviations. Same situation; we have been informed to declare an emergency for the pilot; but due to workload were unable to. This would have made 2 concurrent emergencies in an already very busy sector.Something must be done so that we can provide service to non-radar aircraft without declaring an emergency. Our staffing is already; in my opinion; so low that it is unsafe; and we are overwhelmed with traffic; few breaks; and now this additional workload. Both of these issues (the new direction to declare an emergency any time that a non-radar aircraft needs to alter their route at all; and the dangerously low staffing levels) need to be addressed as quickly as possible.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: ZLC controllers reported being instructed to declare an emergency for any aircraft in the non-radar environment that requests weather deviations despite heavy workload and short staff.