elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the Charlotte 2 SID; at 9;000 feet cruising altitude; ATC assigned to fly direct GANDS intersection. While enroute via white needles; the CHK POS message appeared on the FMS and PFDs. This message was followed by the DR EXCEEDS 5 MIN. A few minutes after; ATC called to confirm that we were on a direct course to GANDS. We replied yes since it was what the FMS and MFD screens displayed. First Officer recommended that we switch to green needles and continue the flight in that setting. The highest altitude assigned by ATC was 11;000 [feet]. Due to the relative low cruising altitude; we weren't able to receive course guidance immediately. ATC provided vectors to airport. Landed uneventful. Course deviation resulted from the lack of experience and insight on the Captain's side as well as the unfamiliarity of flying an aircraft with GPS units deferred at low cruising altitudes. The Captain expected the FMS to be able to navigate via DME at 9;000ft. The Captain failed to follow the First Officer's recommendation to have one pilot fly in white needles and the other in green needles.




Synopsis: CRJ First Officer reported experiencing navigation errors.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reverser Lockout
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We departed on a normal operation flight with no MELs. Upon landing in ZZZ we had a dual thrust reverser failure. Both amber REV indications on engine instruments; Master Caution and amber reverser lights on the overhead panel illuminated. The aircraft came to a stop without incident. We contacted Maintenance in ZZZ to come and have a look at the problem. The Mechanic reported that the reversers were deactivated from a control module that controls the reversers; during a Maintenance check conducted the night prior; and were never reactivated.There were no indications in the cockpit that indicated the reversers were not functioning. This would have been an issue with the takeoff and landing data; especially on a contaminated runway. Especially on a short runway.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that an improper maintenance procedure resulted in both thrust reversers failing to deploy on landing.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was operating in the ZZZ SFRA and may have inadvertently violated a sporting TFR. The sporting event in question was played without fans due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the flight; and as part of my preflight planning; I reviewed current TFRs for the intended flight path using the FAA's TFR website (tfr.faa.gov). Sporting TFRs do not appear on this list; however they historically have appeared in EFB applications; including Garmin Pilot which I reviewed prior to this flight. Garmin Pilot did not show any TFRs over this sporting event either prior to the flight or during the flight. The flight operation took place in the ZZZ SFRA. I was not contacted during the flight by ATC; nor was I notified by ATC or the FBO at the destination airport of any issues with the flight. To add to the confusion; another pilot also operating in the vicinity during the time of the game was in contact with ZZZ1 Tower and was notified that there was no TFR because there were no spectators.A few days later; I received notification from Garmin that sporting TFRs were not appearing in the Garmin Pilot application due to an issue with Garmin's data supplier related to COVID-19.I felt this report was prudent since even prior to COVID-19; these sporting TFRs were already difficult to find. During the COVID-19 pandemic; they are even more difficult to find since the typical data sources may or may not accurately display them.To help avoid any issues with these TFRs in the future. I have joined a local industry group who among other services; provides notifications to pilots about sporting TFRs and other TFRs. I will also be reviewing local teams' schedules directly in addition to using the 3rd party EFB applications.




Synopsis: Pilot reported confusion on whether a sporting TFR is in effect during the COVID-19 Pandemic when spectators are not allowed at the game.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Within the first few minutes Aircraft X asked for a transmission to be made again due to the required mask wearing.  After 3 times of having to repeat a transmission; I removed my mask to provide a better voice quality.  I was not asked by any pilots to say again after that.  Then the OM came walking down the isle and told me to put my mask on.  [The OM] walked by again and told me to put my mask on. He then stood behind me and told me a third time; distracting me from the scope and forcing me to engage in conversation with him regarding the pilots having difficulty understanding me.  He then told me a 4th time to put my mask on and I complied.  During this distraction I missed at least one pilot transmission. The very next transmission I made; the pilot asked me to say again.  I recommend that if a Controller deems it necessary to work traffic without a mask; to better provide a clear and concise transmission; then it should be left up to the discretion of the Controller with how to provide the safest way to communicate.  Regardless of the policy for mask wearing; Aircraft safety should remain at the top of the list for FAA priorities.  It's a shame that it takes controllers complaining of pilots not being able to hear them through masks and then having to file reports to bring this to light.  I sincerely hope an aircraft mishap doesn't have to happen before someone of higher authority takes action.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported having to repeat multiple transmissions due to clarity issues while having to wear a face mask.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: On TYSSN3 Arrival at LAS we were given a 260 head at KADDY and descended to 11000. Then 240 head and 9000. After flying around down low and slow our fuel was getting low. After being cleared for a vis 1L an aircraft was vectored in front of us on 1R shortly after that we were told to go around. At that time we told the controller we were low on fuel and he asked if we were [advising a low fuel state]. Being boxed in a corner we said yes; he then said cleared to land 1L we arrived at the gate with 4.9 on fuel.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew on arrival to LAS reported being vectored around at lower altitude. Eventually they were cleared for a visual to Runway 1L; had an aircraft vectored in front of them for Runway 1R; and were told to go around. They advised ATC of their low fuel state and were then cleared to land Runway 1L.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
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 System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In Cruise flight at 40;000 in dark conditions about 30 minutes into flight we received an intermittent altitude warning and a red cabin altitude light. After a second or so I dawned on my mask. The Captain ask for lower altitude. We were given FL240. Next controller gave us 10;000 feet. We ran QRH. Gained control of cabin pressure in manual mode and removed masks below cabin pressure of 10;000 as briefed prior to departure.Cabin pressure was 9;500 feet and climbing. Cabin climb rate was excessive. Masks did not deploy in cabin. Other than ear pressure comfort no one in the cabin took any issue or notice. Flight Attendants (FA) did not hear anything unusual. As the 'Cabin Altitude' action was placed prior to 'emergency descent' we did not run the emergency descent check list. We did descend without delay to 10;000 feet at VMO and speed break out. Landing was without incident. Maintenance met the aircraft.Reference in the 'cabin altitude' QRH should reference the emergency descent check list. There was no issues however the seat belt sign was in off position until I noticed it later after the event. There was no turbulence in the descent.




Synopsis: When the flight crew of a B737-700 received a cabin altitude alert warning they performed an emergency descent to below 10;000 feet MSL before the passenger O2 masks deployed and landed without further incident.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VRB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D VRB
ATC / advisory: Tower VRB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was with my student holding short at taxiway D for a Runway (12R) crossing clearance to go back to the ramp after the last landing on 12L. It was a busy morning and soon there was another aircraft pulled up behind us. We had to wait for sometime; about 7 minutes or so while multiple aircraft taking off and landing on the runway. But then the Ground Controller started transmission 'No need to respond; I acknowledge your patience.' While I didn't see any more traffic on the final; I started moving before realizing it wasn't a crossing instruction. I pulled up and heard the controller stopping the aircraft behind us then subsequently instructed us to expedite crossing the runway. I stopped on the taxiway cleared of 12R until the Ground Controller called us again. He asked what happened and was answered with apologies that we misunderstood. Then we got the taxi instruction to the ramp. I may have got little complacent with the operations at this airport and didn't pay much attention to different instructions. The phrases like 'Thank you for patience' were with runway crossing clearance in many cases. And often I heard 'no need to respond' whenever a controller makes multiple aircraft crossing a runway at the same time. But they never should be confused or assumed to be a clearance.




Synopsis: Pilot thinks he has clearance to cross an active runway; then while crossing; questions if he really did.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] dispatched with inoperative APU due to APU inlet icing while operating in freezing rain. Directed to proceed to De-Ice pad and contacted 'Snowman' on assigned frequency.  Detailed APU problem and notified them 4 to 6 times that we had 'both engines running'.  Asked if we would de-ice with both engines on or one off?  Informed as we entered Spot X on pad to shut down #1/left Engine for de-ice/anti-ice fluid application.  As we parked brakes and prepared to shut down engine; Snowman informed us that De-Ice Personnel had approached aircraft 'too soon' and had headset sucked into #1/left engine. After ensuring employee was safe and unharmed; we contacted ATC; Operations; Maintenance and Ramp and returned to gate.Better communications among de-icing crew.  Coordinators are talking on both VHF and Mobile radios to their crew. Patience and safety awareness by ground crew.  Have noted less 'care and respect' for Airbus.  Not afforded the same inlet or exhaust awareness as the 737/757 fleets.  This is still a 'real aircraft' and the engines have similar danger areas.




Synopsis: An A321 Captain reported that during ground de-ice procedures a ground employee came so close to a running engine his headset was sucked into the nacelle.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I am] currently [a] Captain at a major airline with 300 hours flown in the previous 6 months. Decided to fly a GA airplane. Reserved a previous airplane I had flown in the past 7 months; a Diamond 40. I arrived at the FBO. Diamond 40 had an electrical problem and was told the Cessna was available. I was asked if I had flown the Cessna. I informed them I had. The FBO then asked if I wanted to do a lap around the pattern and I said I should be ok. I was taking my mother on a flight and decided to just go up and fly before sunset. Preflight to takeoff to approach was uneventful. I crossed the threshold 5 knots fast and started my flare while retarding throttle. The problem was that I flared way too high for a Cessna. I'm used to a Boeing airplane and was used to the high flare. I hit the runway hard and bounced up and landed again and the nose wheel flattened out. FBO helped me taxi airplane to the hangar using a tug. I was then called informed the prop struck the ground and the front gear assembly was pushed up.The FBO should have requested 3 landings recently to rent an airplane and I should have said yes to the FBO when asked if I wanted to. I just wanted to take my mom flying that day. I assumed since I could fly an airliner that flying a Cessna would be a piece of cake. I unfortunately made an error in judgment that since I was current in landings in an airliner I should have no problem in a Cessna.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a hard landing that resulted in damage to the nose gear and a prop strike.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABE.TRACON, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ABE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABE
Second aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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: Procedure

Narrative: I was on arrival radar and had [Aircraft X] on a heading of 090 VFR at 3;000 feet. The aircraft was being vectored for a practice ILS approach to runway 24. I was taking him on the south side of the airport since we were advertising the visual approach to runway 31. When [Aircraft X] was about 10 west of ABE; I noticed [Aircraft Y] was departing runway 31 on runway heading landing PHL. I heard the departure controller issue the pilot 5;000 feet and a left turn direct PTW. This action put him in conflict with [Aircraft X] and standard VFR separation could not be ensured. This action also violated our local procedures. Departure is not allowed to turn aircraft outside the departure corridor without coordination which he failed to do. Luckily; the required separation existed by the time the targets overlapped. I don't know if the other controller saw the potential conflict when he attempted the look and go operation. I did notify [Aircraft X] of the traffic conflict and eventually he did see [Aircraft Y]. I also expressed my concern to the departure controller that he had violated my airspace and in doing so; caused this event to occurHad the departure controller followed proper procedures this event would have never of occurred. His actions introduced unnecessary risk into the NAS. We must to a better job at producing controllers that have pride in what they do and follow procedures that exist for a reason. If we keep certifying lazy controllers this event or events similar to it are certainly going to occur again.




Synopsis: ABE Approach Controller reported of an airspace deviation caused by the Departure Controller that led to a loss of separation with an arrival.