elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I assigned Aircraft X heading 330; altitude 2500 feet on a modified base turn for a Visual Approach ahead of Aircraft Y who was being vectored for the straight-in ILS at 3000 feet. Aircraft X did not have the field in sight as he was approaching the final approach course. I told him there was a change of plans and reiterated the heading and altitude as he crossed the final approach course; and I prepared to vector him for re-sequence. Meanwhile I cleared Aircraft Y for the ILS approach. I've replayed this event multiple times and it seems to confirm exactly what I was attempting to do. At the last point prior to Aircraft X crossing over the localizer and Aircraft Y's flight path there was 4 miles separation. At the first definitive point after flight paths had crossed; 3.68 miles separation existed. Course divergence was 110 degrees. As a result; eventually lateral separation diminished to about 1.5nm at its closest. Aircraft X was not vectored again until lateral separation was established. To me this was textbook 7110.65 5-5-7 Passing or Diverging. My facility Quality Assurance office has determined this is a loss of separation and NMAC. A traffic call may have been warranted.




Synopsis: ZSU Controller reported a loss of separation and an NMAC even though they complied with the rules in the FAAH 7110.65.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PIT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After Landing on Runway 32 at PIT; ATC cleared us to remain with their frequency and taxi to FBO via Taxiway November. Given the poorly labeled taxiway we followed the lines thinking we were on Taxiway November; as it happens we were [on] N2 and taxied onto the no civilian aircraft zone. The cause of this incident was two-fold. One; the area isn't properly identified as a no-go zone for civilian aircraft. Additionally; some foresight during planning would have recognized the possibility of this occurring. Secondly; ATC should not have issued such instruction as though we were familiar with the area; we were not.




Synopsis: Corporate Jet Captain reported a taxiway incursion at PIT airport. The crew taxied onto to Taxiway N2 versus N as cleared.  Captain cited poor taxiway signage/labeling as a contributing factor.
Date: 201501
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: All cabin preparations and boarding of the passengers seemed to be normal. The main cabin door was closed for departure and pushback commenced. We taxied to the runway for departure; received the ready for takeoff communication from the 'A' flight attendant; and we departed.Once airborne; and through 10;000 feet the flight attendants were chimed and removed from sterile cockpit. The 'B' flight attendant began to make a P.A. announcement; which appeared to be louder than normal from the flight deck; however; not much was thought of it at the time and we continued on. Approximately; 20 minutes into the flight another P.A. announcement was made that caused concern. We called back to the flight attendants to see how things were going and to communicate our aircraft swap and gate information with them. The flight attendant in question answered the interphone. She was talking very loudly and with slurred speech. She did not sound like her normal self. We both were very alarmed by this behavior. We completed that quick conversation with her; waited a few minutes and called back hoping that the 'A' flight attendant would answer the interphone; she did. We obtained her assessment of the 'B' flight attendant; which was that she was acting very strange to include talking loud and slurred speech. The 'A' flight attendant said she was embarrassed by her behavior and concerned that something was wrong. On the flight deck we decided to take action. We coordinated with the controlling dispatcher; requested medical assistance; and discussed a possible diversion. We called back to the cabin again to verify the 'A' flight attendants assessment. Once that was completed at no time did we feel the safety of flight was jeopardized? We talked to the controlling dispatcher and a joint decision was made between the captain; the controlling dispatcher and me to continue to our destination. We coordinated an appropriate gate; medical assistance; and the base manager to be present. I believe this was absolutely the correct decision to continue to our destination. Our destination provided us better passenger handling and a timely resolution of the crewmember in question.




Synopsis: When the flight crew and the lead flight attendant all noted strange behavior; loud talking and slurring by the second flight attendant they elected to have the flight met and have the flight attendant evaluated. No results of that evaluation were included.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Lead Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In ZZZZ to do ground check and flight check on Aircraft X coming out of heavy check. Ground checks were completed on day one with discrepancies recorded and addressed in the Aircraft Maintenance Logbook (AML). The functional check flight was completed on the second day with discrepancies again recorded and addressed in the AML. We planned to ferry the aircraft to ZZZ once the discrepancies were addressed. Our arrival time in ZZZ was close to the closing time of ZZZ customs so there was some time pressure to get us in the air. We were in the flight deck ready to go when the AML arrived. The Maintenance representative reviewed the logbook entries with us. Unfortunately; we focused on the discrepancies and overlooked the lack of an airworthiness release signature. We discovered this later in the flight. Upon arrival in ZZZ we contacted Maintenance to address the situation.Crew and Maintenance was trying us to get airborne to get to ZZZ for customs. Airworthiness release signature got overlooked by everyone. Time pressures.When you are getting rushed; it is time to slow down and take a deep breath. Of course all the individuals involved will be double checking these items in the future.


Second narrative: Aircraft X completed a 1S check in ZZZZ. Per company policy a Functional Check Flight (FCF) is required prior to an airworthiness release for this check type. An FCF was accomplished; and after the repair to 3 items found on the FCF there was a need to dispatch the aircraft to ZZZ prior to the closure of customs. The aircraft repositioned without an airworthiness release for the 1S check and the FCF. I informed my Manager and MOD (Manager on Duty) and it was decided the procedure in the Company Maintenance Manual for a Missing Airworthiness Release applied. ZZZ was contacted and the procedure was followed prior to the release of the aircraft for revenue service.Trying to dispatch an aircraft from an international location to meet a customs closure deadline in ZZZ. Slow down and take the time to verify the paperwork.


Synopsis: A330 flight crew and Maintenance reported overlooking airworthiness sign-off after Maintenance visit.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The CAB PRESS warning light illuminated during cruise at FL200.  The First Officer (pilot flying) and I (pilot monitoring) performed the immediate action items for decompression and coordinated a rapid descent to 8;000 feet with ATC.  An emergency was not declared.  All pertinent non-normal and normal checklists were completed and the flight concluded uneventfully. The aircraft warning system worked correctly to alert us to a cabin pressure exceeding 10;000 feet with the illumination of the CAB PRESS warning light. As of yet undetermined malfunction of the air conditioning and/or pressurization computer systems.With the CAB PRESS warning light identified and the excessive cabin altitude verified; we donned our oxygen masks to 'suit up and communicate'.  The seat belt sign was turned on along with the emergency lights.  The FO (PF) then commenced a rapid descent with the condition levers at max and I announced the rapid descent with Center.  A formal emergency was not declared as there was no evidence of other malfunctions that would prevent a safe and normal flight at a lower altitude (crew decision). In accordance with the non-normal checklist; we formally unpressurized the aircraft once level at 8;000 feet. We checked in with the flight Attendant to make sure she was okay; and then updated the passengers with a reassuring PA.  Dispatch was also informed of our issue and agreed that no further action was necessary. Enroute we surveyed other related systems for additional problems with none to be found.  Our new; lower altitude also agreed with the higher terrain MORAs of the area before we continued a normal descent for an uneventful landing. To the extent that this was a hidden system malfunction; there is no way to avoid it from happening again. However; it was a great reminder to visualize and rehearse pressurization-related immediate action items for high-altitude flight in the Dash-8.




Synopsis: Dash 8 Captain reported he continued to destination at a lower altitude following a loss of cabin pressure.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: INT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower INT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared to taxi from the FBO to Runway 33 at INT via Taxiway Alpha and cleared to cross 4/22. When leaving the ramp we reviewed and briefed how Taxiway Alpha curves around the ramp and then diagonally crosses Runway 4/22. We didn't brief anything after that because Alpha continues straight all the way to 33 past that point. After crossing 4/22 I completed the taxi checks while my partner continued the taxi. As we approached the end of 33 I went heads down to switch to Tower frequency and tune departure frequency into the number two comm. When I went heads up again I saw that we were quickly approaching the hold short line for 33. I loudly said; 'Whoa; hold short.' My partner noticed the hold short just as I was saying this and he said something to the effect of; 'I am on the brakes.' I was in the right seat looking across the cockpit out the left window at the hold short sign to see if we were going to stop in time. I lost sight of the sign and I was not sure if we stopped in time. I looked out the right side window and did not see the hold short sign line and assumed it was in front of us. I called Tower and told them we were ready for takeoff. The Tower cleared us for takeoff and we departed. In hind sight I could not figure how we managed to stop given our proximity and closure rate at the time I first looked up and saw the hold short sign approaching. Depending on the angle of the hold short line it is possible that is angled back under the right wing and I was looking for it to the side or in front of us and therefore did not see it. The Tower never said anything about it. The hold short line for Runway 33 is set back a long ways from the departure end and caught both of us by surprise. There is no hot spot shown on the taxi diagram depicting this and I believe that there should be. (As I write this I am referencing NOS charts. I am assuming the hot spots are the same between Commercial and NOS. If there is a Hotspot shown on the Commercial Chart then we just missed it.) Wig-wag type hold short lights would also alert pilots to the non-standard hold short line. I also need to learn as the pilot not flying to take a good look around and be situational aware before I go heads down to change frequencies.




Synopsis: A Fractional pilot reported crossing the INT Runway 33 hold short line because it is set back so far from the runway neither pilot was expecting it at that location.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Everything was normal and going well on the ground as we prepped for our trip with 2 passengers.  Weather couldn't have been better.  Initial clearance was the [omitted]; climb via SID except maintain 5000 feet.  Tower amended our initial climb instructions to 'turn right heading 240 and climb to 1-0 thousand feet; cleared for takeoff'.  Passing thru approximately 2500 feet on that heading; Oakland Center cleared us to FL230 and direct ALB (2200 miles away).  At this same time we got a traffic advisory (TA) for traffic ahead and above us; quickly followed by a resolution advisory (RA) to 'level off; don't climb' with an amber traffic icon showing 700 feet above us in very close proximity...we rapidly reduced power and reduced our rate of climb and leveled around 3000-3200 feet; approximately; as we saw the Cirrus pass directly overhead less than 500 feet above.  We advised Center we were complying with the RA and the controllers response was 'oh yeah I was going to point that out; he's at 3500 feet'.  After passing the traffic and the TA/RA cleared; we resumed our climb and turned on course without further event.Suggestions:For crew:  set TCAS to above instead of norm to give crew a little more visibility during the initial climb phase.  Though in this case; the crew was already looking outside and may not have seen the traffic icon much sooner.  This can result in information overload in high density areas and is not my standard practice.For ATC:  priority should be given to pointing out VFR traffic instead of clearing us to a fix that is 2200 miles away.  This required the pilot not flying (PNF) to go heads-down and program the FMS at a fairly low altitude.  On a weekend day when there is a large amount of VFR traffic. The crew's attention is needed outside the aircraft.  We recognize that it is always the crew's responsibility to see and avoid when in VMC; but if the  controller had the time and open airspace to clear us direct across the country; then that same controller also had the time to point out traffic; which was the more immediate and pressing issue.




Synopsis: CL30 pilot reported an NMAC with a light aircraft climbing out of APC; commenting that an earlier heads-up from ATC would have been appreciated.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight [shipping a/c parts]
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Parts / Stores Personnel
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was assigned to shipping. I printed the list of RO's [Return Orders] and began to sort them. I packaged the item for shipping and processed through the (carrier) system. The morning pick up by (carrier) resulted in the return of 2 of 4 packages for Europe. The packages in question was in that group. These items needed the customs paperwork; not related to the Hazmat; and the pallet containing these item; was placed near the URM table to be worked later. In the afternoon pick up (carrier) driver did take the pallet; which I found out on Monday.




Synopsis: Airline Maintenance personnel reported Hazmat packages returned by freight carrier due to incomplete required documentation.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation I/SP (C501)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was departing ZZZ in a Cessna Citation 501. It was only me in the aircraft heading to ZZZ1. I taxied out to depart on Runway XX. Nothing was out of the ordinary. ZZZ Tower cleared me for takeoff on Runway XX. I rolled on to the runway and stopped when I was lined up on the runway. I took a look over my Crew Alert Messages of which there were none indicating. I also looked at my Engine instruments to make sure they were indicating normal; which they were. I advanced the throttles to my takeoff power. Once I achieved takeoff power; I took one more glance at my engine indicating instruments and they were still reading normal. As I approached around 70 kts. indicated on my airspeed; I heard what sounded like a HUGE bang from my left side. I immediately rejected the takeoff; I maintained directional control; and rolled off on to a taxiway as soon as I was at a safe speed. I shut down both the engines while on the taxi. Upon the exterior inspection of the aircraft; we discovered that left engine had a catastrophic failure. The front fan blew out the front of the engine which rolled down the runway. There was a big hole in the top of the cowling of the engine. There was also a small hole in the bottom of the cowling. All the rotor fan blades were destroyed and mangled. Oil was leaking all from the bottom of the left engine. We towed the aircraft back to the FBO where it currently sits. No one was hurt or injured during this.




Synopsis: Citation 501 pilot reported engine failure during takeoff roll.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, 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: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Half way through the flight passenger in XX stated loudly to me that she was high risk and upset with XY & XZ and YX & YY for not wearing their masks. I told XX that I am here to monitor and reiterate but they're also allowed to have the mask off when they are eating and drinking. All 4 of them had just gotten their snacks and drinks and were eating/drinking; but she continued to loudly say that they weren't actively doing so. I told her I'd reiterate it to them and as I was; she yelled at them to have it over their nose and mouth. I offered her to sit in ZX or row XX as those were the only open seats and she denied and also didn't like my distance between her and I. Afterwards I offered her another mask which she didn't use; and several times she took her own mask off to do whatever she needed to do at the time. I apologized and the other passengers complied after I asked them to.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger complained because other passengers were not wearing a mask while they were eating a snack.