elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X enroute from the southeast. Shortly after check-in; the pilot requested direct to a waypoint direct EKO; which [was] about 10 miles east of EKO. I cleared him as requested; and confirmed that the pilot wanted to conduct a visual approach. A few minutes later; I cleared the pilot to descend to 14;000 ft; which the pilot read back. Soon after; I gave the pilot the airport's position and advised to 'report in sight for a visual approach.' The pilot did not read it back correctly. I still do not know exactly what he said; but it sounded wrong; so I repeated myself to the aircraft; 'Just want to confirm; report airport in sight for a visual approach.' This time; the pilot responded 'wilco.' At this point the aircraft was still well above the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude); at around 16;000 ft; if I remember right. I went back to my scan; checking up on the rest of the sector. A short time later; Aircraft X came up on the radio asking to confirm that I cleared him for a visual approach but wanted him to report the airport in sight. At that moment his altitude indicated 13;400 ft; which [matched] the MIA where the plane was positioned. I immediately responded 'Negative; maintain one three thousand four hundred; report the airport in sight.' The next update to the aircraft's datablock showed 13;100 ft.; three hundred ft. below the MIA. The only thing I feel I could have done differently would have been to re-clear the aircraft to 14;000 ft after the bad readback.


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


Synopsis: Salt Lake City Center Controller trainee and their instructor reported they did not notice an aircraft leave its assigned altitude and descend below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were issued a clearance to fly direct to NARFU which is one of the IAF's on the GPS approach to Runway 6. We were at 4;000 feet and had yet to be cleared for the approach. We were in and out of the clouds; so a visual approach at that altitude wasn't possible. As we were approaching NARFU; we discussed how we hadn't yet been cleared for the approach; so we queried ATC. We were unable to get a response and there was a lot of static on the radio; which is common for the Phenom in the clouds. We pressed the squelch and tried ATC again. This time we could make out broken transmissions that were obviously directed at us. It sounded like ATC was trying to contact us but wasn't giving any instructions or appearing to hear our transmissions. At this point; passing NARFU was imminent and we were at our planned arrival time. We decided to follow lost communication procedures and continue the approach as NARFU was an IAF. Shortly after this; we discovered there was a different center frequency printed on the approach plate than the one we had been on during our descent. We tried this frequency and were able to speak to ATC and cancel our IFR clearance as we had picked up the airport visually by this time. We continued our approach and landing without incident.I believe this event was caused by two issues. The first is the poor performance of the Phenom's radios. The radio strength is very weak and is susceptible to static while flying into clouds. The other seems to be the controller with whom we lost contact possibly forgetting to give us a frequency change before we were out of her range.




Synopsis: Small corporate jet FO reported difficulty communicating with ATC on approach to UUV; citing the Phenom's 'weak radios' as contributing.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight coordinated at FL350 southbound came over the boundary at FL360 head on with other traffic




Synopsis: Developmental Center Controller reported an aircraft came to them at the wrong altitude head on with another aircraft.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Library (other than Nav database)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We were on Aircraft X to ZZZ. As we were on approach to Runway XX; while extending our flaps to 10; we received a #1 Leading Edge transit light. We performed a go-around and asked for delay vectors to run the QRH (Quick Reference Handbook). We performed all checklists and got our performance data needed to land on Runway XX. We landed XX with no other issues and had fire trucks meet us just in case of hot brakes. After taxiing off the runway; we requested brake-cooling data [from the performance data system]. We received an error message telling us to input correct runway. We tried every combination possible and double-checked everything. We never got the brake-cooling data. Fire truck personnel took heat readings of the brakes and said they were 300 degrees and everything looked normal. We asked our Dispatcher to see if he could run the brake-cooling numbers for us. He came up with the same error message. We also had a Jumpseater who tried to work the brake-cooling data with his iPad app; and he came up with same error message.The Captain talked with Dispatch again and gave him all the landing data and the brake temperature reading from the Fire Department; to have him talk with Maintenance Control to see if we were good to taxi to the gate. We all agreed (Maintenance Control; Dispatch; and us) that we were good to taxi to the gate. It was 25 minutes from landing to the time we got to the gate. Maintenance was standing by to check brake temps and said they were 250 degrees at the gate. Biggest question for us is why none of us could pull up brake-cooling data with all the different resources we were trying to use for our flight.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a Flap/Slat issue resulted in a fast landing and hot brakes; but then unable to access the brake-cooling data.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: STE.Airport, WI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF STE
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Runway excursion due to temporary loss of control (instructional). Shortly after landing; directional control was lost resulting in a runway excursion off hard surface runway onto grass. Suspected cause: student stiffness on rudder pedals at time of touchdown.




Synopsis: PA28B-235 Instructor reported loss of control and runway excursion when student froze on the rudder pedals.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff we received a HYD1 LOW QT advisory message on the EICAS. We followed the checklist which said to monitor the hydraulic quantity in affected system. Later we noted the quantity continued to decrease. We elected to return and declared an emergency. After an uneventful landing we continued to the gate. Maintenance personnel found a leak in the number one hydraulic system.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain experiences HYD1 LOW QT advisory message on the EICAS after takeoff. The quantity continues to decrease and the crew elects to return to the departure airport.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Aeronca Champion
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Winds were from 250 degrees at 8 KTS. I was landing on the Runway 27. The weather was clear with unlimited visibility. I was the pilot and sitting in the back seat. The passenger was in the front seat. I touched down on the tail wheel at 55 miles per hour; then bounced on the main gear; and lost directional control to left. [This] resulted in a ground loop; and the right wing tip struck the runway surface. We departed the runway onto the grass south of Runway 27. I taxied back onto runway and to the hangar. No injuries. I did not touchdown tail and main at the same time; and then over-corrected with rudder. I should have gone around. There was minimal damage to the Ceconite fabric on the right wing tip. When I contacted the Tower for taxi clearance I informed them of no injuries. I also called the Tower on the land-line after incident per their request and I declined to make report as the damage was minimal. The Tower called back in 30 minutes to verify that no report would be filed. I will get additional dual instruction with emphasis on landings from the back seat.




Synopsis: An Aeronca pilot lost control during landing while operating from the aft seat with a passenger in the front seat. They ground-looped and departed from the runway surface. It resulted in minor damaged to the right wing-tip but no injuries.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The foreign City X flights are a big problem with the issue of a large number of the passengers refusing to wear their mask from after boarding and throughout the entire duration of the flight. The flight attendants are nonstop in the processes of enforcing the mask requirement and a constant barrage of calls to the cockpit; in addition they are being verbally abused and disrespected by the non-compliant passengers . Company needs to find a way to strongly inform the passengers of the requirement and the seriousness of the lack of respect to the crew and fellow passengers. This is becoming such a problem that I as Captain of the aircraft am going to be forced to land the aircraft at the nearest suitable airport along our route and deplane the instigators.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported many passengers refuse to wear face masks during flights to a specific international destination.
Date: 201811
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were working on Aircraft X for the Aileron and Elevator leak check maintenance task. I went up in the Cockpit and found a person that looked exactly like a mechanic and he moved out of the way for me to do my job. I informed the foreman that someone was in the cockpit on a live plane without my knowledge. It was someone from the move team dressed exactly like a mechanic. My partner and I completed the panel installation on the left side of the aircraft; the other two mechanics were still working on the right side panels. There is only 1 sign off and I went back out to verify panel installation and was advised the tail panel still had one screw that needed to be installed. While up on a cargo king verifying fasteners and replacing one short screw the APU started 2 feet from my head as well as the mechanic that was with me. I went and found the move team and asked them why they started the APU without walking the plane; they indicated that [number] told them it was ok to take the plane. They never walked the plane to verify we were done. [Name] at [number] said Foreman told him we were done; [Name] told me he only told [Number] it should be done by XA:30. I don't know who is telling the truth but I don't think the move team belongs on a live aircraft while Maintenance is still working on it. It is extremely dangerous to have untrained personnel in the cockpit of an aircraft while Maintenance is still working on it. Better training and procedures on when Aircraft Move Team is allowed to be on an aircraft. Aircraft Move Team should not be dressed like Maintenance and should not be sitting in the cockpit while active Maintenance is being performed.




Synopsis: Aircraft move crew started APU without informing Maintenance Crew while maintenance was still being performed on the aircraft.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing and clearing the runway; Flight Attendants in the aft cabin called up to state there was a strong smell of a chemical similar to bleach; that their eyes were burning and they had put on their portable O2 masks. After a very short conversation with the Captain we agreed we would tell ZZZ ground we needed to go to a gate now; and to roll [support] vehicles. At the same time; I notified Operations of our situation. we completed associated procedures; (quick action; QRH etc). Upon gate arrival; the Fire Department stated they found volatile organic compounds in the [passenger cabin] air but that they were dissipating. Once off the airplane; we gathered as a crew and followed the fume event form on the Ipad. Then we went on to operate our next flight.[Reported stated cause] had to be either an aircraft maintenance issue or something that was spilled in the passenger compartment or possibly the cargo compartment.Since I don't know the exact cause; its difficult to have prevention suggestions.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported aft Flight Attendants notified flight deck crew of 'strong chemical smell' shortly after landing. Flight Attendants reported experiencing physiological symptoms. Flight crew requested expedited taxi clearance and airport support personnel.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D AFW
ATC / advisory: Tower AFW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a visual approach about 1 NM north of WIGZU.  VFR Aicraft Y was 2 NM east of WIGZU tracking westbound.  I issued the traffic to Aircraft X and let them know where the traffic was; where it was headed; and that the aircraft was not in communication with ATC.  I issued the traffic again when Aircraft X was crossing WIGZU and the VFR aircraft was 1 NM east of WIGZU.  It appeared they must have seen Aircraft X because the VFR aircraft made a sharp northbound turn.  The CA alarm did sound between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y.I recommend a shelf or a key added to AFW Class Delta.  There are many; many instances where VFR aircraft are transitioning at WIGZU; at the same altitude as arrivals or departures; but are not in communication with ATC.




Synopsis: AFW Tower Controller reported an unsafe event where a VFR aircraft is transitioning an arrival path for air carriers outside of Class Delta causing an airborne conflict.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 50
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were flying in cruise and the engine began to run rough. I started my troubleshooting by turning on the carburetor heat. The engine started to run smooth so I turned the carburetor heat off. As soon as I turned it off the engine almost quit so I turned it back on. At this point it didn't seem to matter and the engine had lost most of its power. It never completely shutoff but I had a very significant loss of power. The engine would give me little bursts of power and then almost shutoff. I diverted and made a precautionary landing in fear I was going to have to land in a field. Luckily we had enough altitude to make it to ZZZ. When we landed we did a couple engine run ups on the ground. The engine seemed to run fine. We are waiting until tomorrow to fly it and are going to have a mechanic look at it to determine what went wrong and what actions need to be taken. We will not be flying it until that is done. I personally suspect carburetor icing that the carburetor heat could not keep up with. In the future I will be turning on carburetor heat every couple mins to prevent any trace of ice.




Synopsis: Pilot flying C-150 aircraft reported loss of engine power in cruise. The pilot applied carburetor heat but the engine eventually lost more power. Pilot diverted and made a precautionary landing.