elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While clearing Runway 26L on K in ZZZ; we were given clearance to hold short of 26R. I repeated the clearance to the First officer (F/O) and taxied in. I understood and fully intended to hold short; but somehow misinterpreted the visual cues and continued. The F/O repeated the clearance then stopped the aircraft. Our nose was across the hold short. As we stopped; the aircraft departing 26R passed 100 ft to 200 ft above us. Tower then cleared us across.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a runway incursion.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 1K1.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E 1K1
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Take Off
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Taking off Runway 17 (North End) of 1K1 airport. Lots of activities at the airport during the fly-in. Folks walking across North ditch to gain access to the restaurant. Performed run-up and check list between North end and fuel service area (staying clear not to prop blast pedestrians walking through the ditch on the North end. Started take-off roll full power; lifted tail wheel... and just then I see a motorcycle take off down the left (East side of the runway).  I'm at full power flying a 450hp tail dragger. Not an option to just chop the power. I pulled over to the right side (West) of the runway and continued the take-off. After reaching 60 knots lifted off gaining speed and began climb out just past mid-field. Continued following West edge of runway in case emergency procedures were required (engine failure). There was zero coordination or expectation of a motorcycle jumping out on the runway. I handled the situation as safely as possible maintaining distance but also gaining speed for climb out. I believe I made the safest choice to maintain visibility (Cowling of a 450hp tail dragger); continue gaining airspeed and then maintaining a steady climb out with options if failures were to happen.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action on the take-off roll when they encountered a motorcycle on the runway.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon our descent into EWR; we had just crossed over the New Jersey shoreline and were approximately 10 miles north of McGuire AFB at 6;000 feet. At that time I noticed a metallic glint at about our 1 o'clock position. I asked the First Officer if he saw it as well; and he said he did. At 250 KIAS; it closed on us fairly quickly but it kept glinting in the sun so we were able to track it. As we approached it; it seemed to look like a small balloon; but as it went down the First Officer's side; he said it was a 2-3 foot in diameter drone. It passed about 300 feet or so to our right headed east and about 300-500 feet below us. We immediately reported the incident to ATC so that they could make the position. No other aircraft mentioned seeing this object anywhere in our area. The rest of the flight was completed without incident.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a close encounter with a UAV while in descent for landing at EWR.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We received a full route reroute from clearance delivery. The First Officer (FO) entered and inserted the new route. We completed a full route check of the new route. After passing BAM Salt Lake Center asked us to confirm our route. At that point we realized that the points between BAM and DLL were no longer in the FMC. ATC said we could continue to DLL with no further comment. Neither the FO nor I are sure what happened to the route between BAM and DLL. We both feel it was properly inserted and checked; and there were no route modifications.


Second narrative: While on the ground in SFO; we received a full route clearance from ATC verbally. I entered the cleared route into the FMS; and then had the Captain check my work using the route clearance verification procedure as normal. All looked good and all points in the clearance were loaded. Enroute after passing BAM; ATC queried us on our cleared route of flight. It was at that point we saw that the FMS had dropped the routing between BAM and DLL; and was sending us direct. We told this to ATC; Salt Lake Center; who said it was no problem; and to continue direct to DLL.


Synopsis: Crew received a reroute during preflight; reprogrammed FMC; and crosschecked data. However; several waypoints dropped out causing a track deviation which was brought to the crew's attention by ATC.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were level at FL230. Center cleared us to; 'Descend and maintain FL220.' We started to descend. At about FL225; we heard Center give ACR AABA (a different flight enroute to the same VOR) the same assignment: Descend and Maintain FL220. The First Officer immediately stopped our descent and initiated a climb back to FL230 while simultaneously; I asked to confirm our assignment. The Controller seemed a little confused with the two similar call signs. (Ours was ACR ABBA). He then gave us a new clearance to FL210. Center then cleared the other flight; ACR AABA to FL220. Center then advised us both of similar call signs on frequency. Both flights acknowledged.If there is any way to keep similar sounding call signs from being in the same area it would help. Also; a huge help would be to go back to the 3 digit call sign. ACR BBA sounds very different from ACR ABA.


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


Synopsis: Similar sounding four digit flight numbers both inbound to the same VOR were both cleared to maintain the same altitude. The first flight so cleared recognized the issue and returned to their originally cleared altitude while the error was corrected and all involved informed.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I began my shift on desk X at XA:00L; and I was to relieve three dispatchers at desks Y; Z and A at XA:00L. The Chief Dispatcher sent a message to the entire floor that the midnight desk assignments had been revised. It now showed that my desk would pick up a total of 7 desks instead of the original 3. The new desks were X; Y; Z; A; B; C; and D. There was a note on the revision that there were only 14 total flights among the new desks. It appeared that they only counted the number of releases to work the next morning; because there were a total of 38 flight in the air that I would now be responsible for. Just as I finished reading this revision; I received a call from a flight in the air having issues with the number two engine. I told a fellow Dispatcher to call the bridge and advise them that I am refusing to accept this many desks and flights. The Chief Dispatcher came down to my desk and I was able to show him how many flights I would have to handle. He apologized and said that he was told that it was only 14. The Chief Dispatcher returned to the bridge; and another revision was issued to remove three desks from my workload. The workload model agreed to by the company and my union is no more than X releases per hour; and no more than XX flights in the air at one time. This would have been more than double the allowed number of flights per desk. The company reduced the number of domestic midnight desks beginning on this shift. This reduction in dispatchers and desks has caused a new workload issue.Honor the workload model that has been agreed to and open the closed desks to mitigate the workload problem.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an overwhelming amount of flights the Dispatcher was advised they would be working; due to staffing issues.
Date: 201707
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After blocking in; the pilots obviously shut down the ground power upon their departure from the aircraft. I was in the aft galley saying goodbyes to our customers and a couple of people had to use the lav's before deplaning and said to me 'there is no light in the lav' when the door was closed and locked. It was also stifling hot in the back where we were congregated. NO AIR!! I went to call the Flt Deck and the purser and there was no way to use the intercom. Then I tried to use the PA. Of course NOTHING. This has happened to me a number of times before when the ground power has been shut down; the airplane was still at least 3/4's full from my vantage point. My concern is/was; what if there was a medical emergency? What if there was a fire? Many situations could potentially happen and there is/was no way to communicate with the front of the aircraft; to the Flt Deck or the FAs in the forward cabin. I don't think a megaphone would handle the communication needed for an emergency!




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported a complaint with company procedures that permit pilot crews to shut down all power after parking at the gate with passengers still deplaning.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On arrival Approach descended us from 11;000 FT to 3;000 FT on a vector to the ILS XXR. We were mostly IMC in the descent; with ground contact starting at approximately 10;000 MSL. The aircraft was in a clean configuration with all engine and wing anti-ice on. Our vector took us around a single cell that was to the northeast or our position [during which] we encountered heavy rain and a possible lightning strike at approximately 9;000 MSL. Numerous EAD alerts including loss of all FMS data followed. We declared an emergency with ATC and after reporting souls on board and fuel remaining; requested extended vectors at 5;000 MSL to allow time to analyze all alerts/FMS issues. We asked a jumpseating pilot to come to the flight deck to assist as an extra observer and traffic monitor. Our weights were reinitialized; approach reloaded; and speeds cross checked with the QRH for last known landing weight. After running all applicable checklists; and checking the current ATIS; we requested vectors back to the ILS XXR where a normal; uneventful landing was made. Fire and rescue followed us to parking with no further action required.


Second narrative: [Narrative added no additional information].


Synopsis: An MD-11; being vectored around weather by Approach Control; encountered heavy rain and suffered a possible lightning strike which caused the loss of FMS data.  They declared an emergency; requested delay vectors while evaluating and re-establishing system functionality; and landed safely.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NGU.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We fly in and out of NGU (Norfolk NAS; Norfolk; VA).  I think the TAKE-OFF Minimums on the Jeppesen 31-1 are incorrect.  I have a Jeppesen 31-1 dated 11 Dec 09; which (correctly) shows Runway 28 Take-off minimums as:  Adequate Vis Ref 1/4; and STD 1 (1 & 2 Eng). At some point; Take-off Obstacles for Runway 28 was updated to include Stadium Lights.  This caused Jeppesen to change the TAKE-OFF Minimums to N/A.  Really this means that we need to be VFR to takeoff on Runway 28 at NGU.  I wrote to Jeppesen and sent in the DOD document on Takeoff minimums; but they cited a US Navy document and did not respond to my second query.  I will send the information to company Safety.  The Stadium lights for runway 28 are 74 feet high and 2;327 feet from the Departure end of the Runway (DER).  The TAKE-OFF Obstacles for Runway 10 are TREES; which are up to 100 feet tall within 1;500 feet from DER.  The TREES are HIGHER and CLOSER to the DER.  I think the TAKE-OFF Minimum criteria was incorrectly applied to RWY 28.  I tried to correct this but have not been successful.




Synopsis: An Captain reported that he has the takeoff minimums for Runway 28 at NGU have been changed to N/A on the Jeppesen 31-1 plate and believes that this is incorrect. The previous version stated; Adequate Vis Ref 1/4; and STD 1 (1 & 2 Eng); with the addition of stadium lights that should not have affected the takeoff minimums.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ONT.Tower, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: Tower ONT
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was departing from Runway 8R during contra flow operation. Aircraft X was put in the rundown list with the note 'ry08' to indicate that they would depart Runway 8R with Aircraft Y inbound. Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff with Aircraft Y on a 16 mile opposite direction final for Runway 26L. Aircraft X took Runway 8R but had a momentary delay and it would be close with the opposite direction arrival of Aircraft Y. Aircraft X was airborne and starting a right turn with sufficient time and both Aircraft X and Aircraft Y had each other in sight. There was no loss of separation! SCT (POM sector) called up complaining that they had not been told that ONT was in contra flow operation and that Aircraft X departing Runway 8R was something they had not expected even though I put Aircraft X in the rundown list with 'ry08'. ONT had been contra flow since XA00PM [late evening]. The swing shift crew at ONT apparently had not notified SCT of contra flow before we came in for the mid-shift. First; contra flow operation must be changed from its current XA00PM to XJ00AM to to something more along the lines of XB00pm to XH00AM or even XC00AM-XI00AM. Second; changing to contra flow must be a decision that the mid-shift crew makes not the crew that will be leaving right after it starts. There are too many arrivals between XA00pm and XB30pm to get any departures out with any level of efficiency.




Synopsis: ONT Tower Controller reported of an unsafe opposite direction operation.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Shortly after taking the R92 position an aircraft who calls themselves as Aircraft X said they were two minutes from jumpers away; at around that time I advised Aircraft X of an Aircraft Y to the east of the field headed west bound at 7 thousand working [with] Allentown approach.  The pilot acknowledged but still decided to release his jumpers; a move that I considered unsafe.  The pilot then advised he would stay to the north and begin his descent.  He was asked to report leaving 10 thousand.  The pilot turned to the south and descended fast enough that En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) showed an exceptional vertical rate readout for MODE C.  Aircraft X's target came very close to and may have merged with the Aircraft Y flight's target.  I tried to call traffic but got no response from Aircraft X.  After Aircraft X was through six thousand he came up on frequency asking if he should contact Allentown.  I asked why he wasn't responding to traffic calls and he said he was coordinating with UNICOM at the time. After many unsafe occurrences with this operator there still hasn't been an LOA signed with them.




Synopsis: A New York Center (ZNY) Controller reports of an aircraft that drops sky divers while conflicting traffic for it is inbound to an airport in close proximity. The Controller thinks this operation is not safe. The pilot was not on frequency all of the time and was off coordinating on UNICOM.