elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: A380
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: B757-200
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the radar at Sector 17/18 combined; was talking to both airplanes. I issued the standard crossing clearance to a B757; 'cross 25 miles east of BOS at FL280'. There were a number of other things going on in the area; traffic wise; including a Global Hawk UAV that was holding in airspace on my sector's northern boundary. The supervisors; TMU and military coordinators had been trying to figure out for hours what we were going to do with the UAV because we do not normally work them and have no procedures in place for working them currently. I was distracted by that activity; as well as my regular traffic; including issuing reroutes to two other aircraft; and did not notice that an A380 was head-on with the B757. The two were approximately 1.5-2 minutes from losing separation; and I panicked and told the B757 to start down; no delay through FL340; then turned him 10 left. I realized I had meant to turn him right; so I turned the A380 10 left; also. I then noticed that was not going to be quite enough; so I turned them each another 10 left. I told the B757 to report leaving FL340; then a foreign aircraft asked a question; and I am not sure if I lost separation or not; it was very close. The hit prior to losing separation the B757 was at FL344. By the time the B757 was able to report; he said he was almost through FL330; and they were at 3 miles on my scope. Neither my D-side nor I caught it until it would have been too late; but the B757 had not started descending. Had I taken half a second longer to assess the situation; I would have just told the B757 to maintain FL360 until I saw him clear of the traffic. I then made the situation worse by turning him into the traffic instead of away from it; and had to take more action. Being less distracted by the unusual situation; and not having missed the oncoming traffic; I would have just waited to issue the descent clearance.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reports being distracted by a UAV holding in his airspace and not noting two aircraft that are head on; in a timely manner. Controller errors exacerbated the problem and separation may have been lost.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Speed All Types; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain was flying. We were just inside the WAHUU2 Arrival at FL380 when ATC issued a clearance to descend to FL340 and expect to descend via the WAHUU2. The Captain elected to start the descent by using Vertical Speed (VS) at 500 FPM then reinitialized the FMC to FL340 to place the FMC in a CRZ DESC mode; not VNAV PATH. She kept the descent going at 500 FPM.As we were approaching the new Top of Descent (TD) for FL340; we were at 35;500 feet MSL and I mentioned to the Captain we are going to be about 2;000 feet high above path unless we increase the rate of descent. The Captain elected to continue the slow descent as we passed the TD 1;500 feet above path and increasing while she stated not to worry. ATC then issued a clearance to descend via the WAHUU2. We were 2;500 feet above path. The Captain never engaged VNAV and elected to use VS to try and catch up to the path.As we were accelerating past 300 KIAS; I mentioned we are fast and need to maintain 280 KIAS per the note on the arrival. The Captain denied it at first; checked the chart looking for the note; found it; but continued to accelerate to catch the path in VS mode. I then requested ATC give us 'speed our discretion;' which they denied. We accelerated to 310 KIAS in VS. She never once engaged VNAV during the entire approach; putting my PM duties in the yellow to ensure we did not bust an altitude restriction. We finally got vectored off the WAHUU2 and landed uneventfully.The technique for Captains to use VS on published arrivals is still being practiced and places the PM in the yellow to crosscheck aircraft performance not to exceed published restrictions. There still remains a misunderstanding of how CRZ DESC works vs VNAV PATH; VNAV SPD; or VS. Please publish a training guide that is handed out or published on the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) to clearly spell out the difference; with examples of each. There should be a comparison between CRZ DESC; VNAV PATH; VNAV SPD; and VS on the effects and impact to properly fly a published arrival with airspeed and altitude restrictions.




Synopsis: B737-700 FO reported the Captain; as the pilot flying; chose to use CRZ DESC mode rather than VNAV; and was having difficulty complying with the RNAV STAR constraints.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While departing ZZZ with no long range navigation operational; the captain inadvertently switched the COM 1 frequency off of an active center frequency to one that was previously used. According to ZZZ Center; they were trying to call us numerous times on the frequency that was switched off; likely for less than a minute. They finally reached us on the previous frequency and we immediately switched to the correct frequency. The aircraft was being flown via VOR inputs as the primary navigation system; and the comm frequency was accidentally switched off as the captain switched VOR frequencies while attempting to acquire the next VOR station. Firstly; aircraft that are dispatched into the country's busiest airspace should have the navigation equipment operational that ATC expects and is used to using. Every time there is a non-RNAV aircraft; ATC still clears the crew to fly to GPS points or on RNAV arrivals or departure procedures; regardless of what is filed. Aircrew of course correct the controllers; but these non-RNAV aircraft generally result in confusion from one ATC controller to the next.  Additionally; if an aircraft is to be dispatched using VORs as a primary means of navigation; all of the facilities on the route and the major ones near that route that help fix reporting points should be investigated by dispatch for closures or issues. We were repeatedly cleared to ZZZ VOR and it was; after we could not identify the fix; finally determined to be inoperative. We did not see this on the release.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported a temporary loss of communication while attempting to tune the next VOR on non-RNAV required route.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FOK.Airport, NY
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Premier 1
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D FOK
ATC / advisory: Tower FOK
Second aircraft: Sail Plane
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Routine departure on Runway 24. Cleared to 2;000 feet. Tower gave heading to 200. On IFR flight plan; VFR conditions. Copilot called out glider. Observed white t-tail glider making a rapid left rolling maneuver and pull down; to escape my flight path. No communication from Tower or glider. No TCAS alert. Over in 5 seconds. Tower switched us to departure. Called airport manager to advise him of the event; and request condition of other aircraft. Passengers had full view of glider from rear of aircraft through cockpit window. Rest of flight uneventful. All my lights were on. Glider pilot made excellent combat style escape maneuver.




Synopsis: Premier 1 Captain reported an NMAC with a glider departing FOK airport.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
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 Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon taxiing to [Runway] XXL; a loud banging and grinding sound with vibration and shimmy would happen intermittently on taxi with no real reason. Once crossed XXR we asked ATC if we could pull off and called Maintenance; they agreed best course of action was to gate return. Taxied back in slowly still hearing and feeling strange sounds and vibrations intermittently. Once parked a quick inspection by Maintenance revealed that while everything looked normal when still; once the aircraft was moved (they rocked it) the entire nose gear assembly wobbled and was loose. We were delayed swapped planes and continued [the] day as normal.The aircraft was received like this. It had already flown more than likely like this. There needs to be better discipline on reporting foreign sounds. Also; push crews sound like they are fighting a war when they hook up and disconnect. Maybe there is a correlation there.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported noticing grinding sounds and vibrations during taxi-out resulting in a return to gate for an aircraft swap.  Post maintenance inspection revealed the nose gear assembly was loose.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During the initial climb of our departure; it was apparent that the towering cumulonimbus was going to be a factor for the SID that was issued. We asked for; and received a heading. We wanted a climb to attempt to avoid the clouds due to the expected turbulence. During the turn and initial level off; we entered into a cumulonimbus type cloud with moderate turbulence and updrafts. During this time; we couldn't level off at our assigned altitude and reached a max of 10500 ft. We immediately lowered the nose and descended back to our assigned altitude. We received NO TCAS TAs or RAs. No further issues were experienced.




Synopsis: Captain reported updrafts in weather resulted in overshooting altitude.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I filed a report recently about this very same situation.  The hangar is ignoring the pitot tube cover policy on aircraft that are on the ground for more than 48 hours. Today; aircraft came to the line for trip X. Aircraft had been here since [date].  My Supervisor called the hangar at approximately XA:00 to inform the hangar that the pitot inspection was required since they failed to follow procedures.  The aircraft was released for service anyway and sent to the line with a violation they were made aware of.This keeps happening because the hangar managers keep failing to follow procedures.Have the hangar managers and supervisors ensure the pitot cover policy is being complied with.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported problems with other technicians not following the correct company policy for aircraft checks.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft X responded to a TCAS RA that he thought was erroneous and returned to airport on a visual approach. There was no traffic observed on the radar [at] the time of the event; nor was there any observed traffic within 10 minutes before and after the event. Aircraft X did refer to himself as [an incorrect flight number] a few times while communicating. It took me a minute to realize it was him calling; because I initially thought Aircraft X was trying to pick up IFR. I did verify that the aircraft was VMC with terrain and the airport in sight before issuing the visual approach because he had descended below the [minimum IFR altitude]. I also informed him the minimum IFR altitude was 5000 feet.




Synopsis: ATC Center Controller reported an aircraft descended below the Minimum IFR Altitude and reported a TCAS/RA while there appeared to be no traffic in the area.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: Tower ELP
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank Cap
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At night; following refueling; aircraft was being repositioned to hospital base. Pilot smelled an odor of fuel and elected to return to the airport. Following landing; pilot discovered fuel cap was not adequately secured. Additional attention following refueling to ensure cap is not only in place but completely secured.




Synopsis: Pilot of unknown type aircraft smelled fuel after takeoff; returned to airport and found fuel cap not properly secured.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying an IFR flight. About 10 miles west of [destination] at 3000 feet; I noticed a steady decline in the oil pressure. I thought it might be a sensor at first; but the gauge was steadily declining vs. jumping around; so I thought there was a potentially serious problem with the plane. At the time; ATC was vectoring me for a visual approach.  I knew that I was likely to be brought down towards beach before being turned inland for the final approach. I requested being granted priority handling and they told me to descend to 1600 feet. After a few seconds; I decided that it would be best to get the plane on the ground vs. continuing south and risk an engine loss over a heavily populated area so I [advised ATC]. I was asked [which runway I wanted]. I took a runway straight in from my position.  When I landed; tower informed me that there was a trail of black smoke behind me.  I took off with 7 quarts of oil and when I landed I had just over 1; so an engine out scenario was in fact imminent.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported a loss of oil pressure while on approach.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just landed (Piper Archer) at ZZZ runway XX and had taxied back for departure to return to (home airport). I announced on the CTAF that I was departing runway XX; and as I was taxing into position for takeoff; a Glasair on short final came into view and announced that he was going around. He executed the go-around about 150 feet above the runway while I was taking position for takeoff. His evasive action avoided a collision.I had not heard the Glasair position announcements in the pattern; if any. I also did not see the Glasair on final as I was taking into position for takeoff. I should have been more diligent in scanning the pattern area; and especially the final approach course; before taxing onto the runway. The volume control on my headset was set lower than usual; and in retrospect; if I had set the volume higher; if the Glasair had made position announcements; I would have been more likely to hear his reports.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported taking the runway at non-towered airport and seeing a non-communicating Glasair go-around above him.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After pushback and engine start; upon turning air conditioning packs on; acrid smoke began coming out of vents. Shut off packs and recirculating fan while simultaneously returning to gate. Once the packs were turned off the smoke stopped increasing. Deplaned normally without incident. Smoke appears to have come from a loss of the left hydraulic system.




Synopsis: MD-80 Captain reported smoke in the aircraft when packs were turned on after pushback. Flight returned to the gate.