elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was on the ZEEKK arrival into IAH. Was told by approach to expect 26R which we were set up for. We were then switched to 26L. I asked the first officer to put 26L into the FMS. We were given a heading & told to join localizer 26L and had descended to 6;000 feet. I was looking at the Surface tablet at the fixes for the transition to 26L and saw that they did not match with where we should be for the altitude. I had seen the first officer input the new runway but it did not in fact get changed to new runway so we were 2;000 feet off. At that point ATC queried us about our altitude and we told him that we were at 6;000 feet. He issued the approach clearance to 26L based on our current altitude of 6;000 feet.Rushed by runway change and did not accomplish proper cross check.


Second narrative: The most important behavior/action the would prevent a similar incident from occurring would be the act of loading the new assigned runway transition off of the RNAV arrival into the FMS upon receiving the new runway assignment. By doing so the proper flight plan will be loaded to the FMS ensuring proper navigation. Additionally a more accurate review of the flight plan as compared to the arrival as depicted on the Jeppesen Approach plate would prevent such an error from occurring.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported overshooting a crossing altitude when a late runway change caused confusion and distraction.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E D01
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While training a student in the southeast practice area of Centennial; having conducted clearing turns; the student entered a practice steep turn to the left. During the steep turn; I noticed an aircraft passing us on the left at the same altitude within close proximity. I immediately took over the aircraft and tightened the turn further and initiated a climb to the best of the aircraft's abilities. We missed the passing aircraft within 100 feet if not less. We were on the common traffic advisory for the practice area just southeast of Centennial airport. We had announced we were in the 3 Towers box maneuvering at 8;500 before initiating our maneuvers multiple times before and after. We attempted to see if the aircraft was on frequency but no response was received. We made a screenshot of our track log along with the aircraft from the ADS-B. After the occurrence; we returned back to Centennial with no further events.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported an NMAC with a NORDO aircraft while practicing maneuvers.
Date: 201305
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I have noticed driving to the BWI airport passing Runway 10 approach lights; a massive metal structure being built between the approach lights. It is just below the approach lights plane. It appears to be a very rigid structure that would severely damage an aircraft if it ended up below the glide slope. Maybe wind shear. I remember a B747 that took off from SFO on the wrong runway. The runway was shorter then planned. When it rotated it was flying in ground effect and took out the approach lights at the far end. The approach lights were not installed on a break away structure; but metal I-beams that did major damage to the aircraft. Do we want a major metal structure on short final to Runway 10?

Callback: The reporter clarified that this structure is being built between the roadway and the displaced threshold for Runway 10 at BWI.



Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports that a large metal structure is being constructed off the approach end of Runway 10 at BWI that would increase the damage to an aircraft landing short of the runway.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL280; First Officer pilot flying smelled and visually saw smoke coming from underneath his glare shield. We donned oxygen masks and made a left 180 degree turn back to ZZZZ. [We requested priority handling with ATC] at that time. Shortly after; ZZZZ1 seemed to be a better choice and it became our divert. Somewhere in the descent the smoke seemed to stop but we maintained masks on. We asked for Runway XX and were given radar vectors which we backed up with the RNAV XX. The weather was 3500 broken and we were able land in VMC. I stopped the aircraft on the runway and allowed the CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) to visually look over aircraft prior to executing a 180 degree turn to taxi back to our ramp. Remainder was uneventful.


Second narrative: Shortly after reaching cruise FL280 with AP (Autopilot) and AT (Auto Throttle) engaged; I noticed smoke coming from under the glare shield. My gasper quickly blew the smoke into my face. I immediately said smoke out loud and donned my mask and goggles. I could visually see the smoke continue into the cockpit for what seemed like 2-3 minutes. The Captain donned his smoke mask and we both established communications. We immediately [requested priority handling with ATC] while making a U-turn back to ZZZZ initially. After we had the aircraft pointed back to ZZZZ; we decided ZZZZ1 was closer. We checked [the weather] at ZZZZ1 and made the decision to proceed to ZZZZ1. ATC was helpful in providing vectors and a weather report. We loaded the RNAV approach to Runway XX; the only IAP (Instrument Approach Procedure) available to the closest runway to us. We landed uneventfully. Upon landing; we noticed the smoke had dissipated so we elected to taxi back to the parking ramp once CFR (Crash Fire Rescue) had completed an external inspection for smoke or fire.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported smoke and fumes in the cockpit resulting in a diversion to the closest suitable airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Originally assigned the SSKII 1 arrival in DEN with ILS 34R planned. ATC changed arrival to TBARR 1 with ILS 35L. Due to deviations from convective weather. ATC cleared us direct DYMON and maintain 280kts at 11;000'. Due to radio congestion the Pilot Monitoring had a hard time requesting lower and slower. When we finally got to ATC; they cleared us for the visual. We were high and fast so landing gear was extended to assist slowing. I briefed the missed approach again in case we had to go around. At the 1000' gate; we are Vref+20 with flaps 15; gear down and slowing rapidly. By 600' we were stable and properly configured. Touchdown was in the TDZ and we exited at M6 with auto brakes 3. It was clear ATC forgot about our approach clearance but I should have advocated earlier. The bases of the weather prevented a visual sighting of the runways earlier which would have helped make the decision to slow earlier more obvious.After we were at the gate the First Officer and I reviewed the stabilized approach criteria and the CRM/TEM (Threat and Error Management) model which made for a very effective debrief.




Synopsis: Captain reported not being stabilized for approach prior to 1000ft. because they had difficulty requesting lower and slower from ATC.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Pax
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Concerns regarding the use of onboard passenger oxygen masks in the event of a decompression. Due to high use of personal face shields; I have concerns its use during a decompression will not provide adequate or appropriate oxygen levels to the passenger or crew using it. The only way this is resolved is to not wear the mask. There should be directions provided that in this situation; personal mask shields need to be removed. It will also be a concern regarding the time it will take in a high altitude situation. Regardless this should be addressed as a potential critical situation.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concerns with passenger use of masks during the COVID-19 pandemic and the lack of instructions to remove them in order use the oxygen masks in case of a rapid decompression.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I experienced the continued maintenance pushback this evening on Aircraft X at ZZZ when documenting a severely worn tire to maintenance. The MX controller attempted to push me to not write up the mx discrepancy; insisting that he could judge the tires condition from an iphone picture (taken in the dark) from his cubicle in ZZZ1 vice my judgement with the aircraft in ZZZ. I was forced to tell him the tire was getting written up and AOG regardless of his opinion and that I would not operate the aircraft until the tire was addressed. This should not be necessary.This culture of mx controllers pushing pilots to not properly document AOG conditions and attempting to defer obvious safety items has got to stop. I understand that MX is under pressure to 'move the metal'; but [the company] sells safety to its customers; yet does not want to provide it because it is not convenient to do so. Furthermore; the next morning a mechanic contracted by the company validated the worn status of the tire and recommended replacement. I suggest that MX document and repair maintenance items reported by aircraft crew without arguing as to the MX discrepancy validity.A busy flight schedule does not affect aircraft airworthiness. We as flight crews should not be under pressure to operate non airworthy aircraft due to the company's failings to have enough lift to meet flight schedule demand.




Synopsis: Air taxi Captain reported writing up a maintenance discrepancy for a severely worn tire and grounding the aircraft while disregarding pressure by a Company Maintenance Controller to not.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
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 E CHA
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in the descent phase of an arrival into CHA we respond to a TCAS RA. We were operating in daytime visual conditions and given a vector by CHA approach control: HDG 310 and a descent to 6000 ft. We read back and complied with the instructions. While descending the controller amended the altitude and instructed us to maintain 7000 ft. We read back and complied with the instruction. Shortly thereafter we leveled at and maintained 7000 ft. While level at 7000 ft traffic was pointed out by ATC and reported to be at 11 o'clock and 7 miles. We visually acquired the traffic and reported in sight. Our airspeed at this time was 250 knots. Approximately 20 seconds later we received a TCAS RA and complied with the instruction to 'descend'. Prior to the RA it was visually evident that our current heading of 310 degrees and the approximate heading of 080 degrees of the aircraft would place us on a direct intercept course. We had already began preparing for evasive action when the initial TCAS TA alerted and indicated the aircraft was 400 ft below our altitude and climbing. Within 2 seconds the TCAS RA initiated and instructed the descent which we had already began preparing for. A relatively aggressive descent was required to visually avoid the traffic and comply with the RA. Initially the RA specified a 2.2 descent rate on the VSI. Even with the aggressive power reduction and downward pitch moment; the RA quickly changed to 'increase descent rate'. We continued to comply with the RA; and advised ATC that we were descending in compliance with a RA. The controller then issued a further descent to 3000 ft.


Second narrative: It appears to have been an issue of a VFR aircraft having received discretion in his VFR altitude and he climbed directly through our altitude as he crossed in front of us.


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported responding to a RA on descent into CHA.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was not personally involved but heard and observed some of the event as it was taking place.  There was training on the Radar Assist and Radar at the sector.  A departure was in conflict with an arrival to the same airport.  The instructor told the departure to turn to the north below the Minimum IFR Altitude.  I would not normally have been aware of the situation except the instructor was having a discussion with student about the safest remedy to the situation which caught my attention.  There was also a Supervisor monitoring that sector; but I'm not sure if they actually saw what happened or even know that an error occurred.About 30 minutes later I heard another discussion taking place about another aircraft below the Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA).  When I looked at the sector there was a slow aircraft departing Approach's airspace to the north.  The aircraft was at 8;000 feet in a 9; 500 MIA.  I don't know any more details about that aircraft.




Synopsis: ZSE Center Controller reported they observed another sector Controller vector an aircraft that was in confliction with another aircraft below the Minimum IFR Altitude. Later the reporter observed another aircraft in that sector below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DET.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D DET; TFR SPORT
ATC / advisory: Tower DET
Aircraft component: AHRS/ND
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was doing a sightseeing flight. Original location was under DTW Class B airspace. I started 8 west of DET and planned to head south to the Detroit River then northeast up the river. I called DET Tower and asked to transition their Class D airspace. They asked if I was aware of the TFR over Ford Field and I was not. I did get a flight briefing before the flight (and doubled checked it after landing) and did not see a TFR for the football game at Ford Field. It also did not show up on my multifunction display (Avdyne). I tried to visually remain clear of the TFR; but DET Tower called a minute later to inform me that I was in the TFR. The Tower asked me to turn west leave the TFR. I was eastbound and originally turned north which looked (visually) like it would get me out of the TFR quicker. Ford Field and the TFR did not show on my moving map. DET Tower called again and told me that I was still in the TFR. At that point; I continued to turn northwest to leave the TFR. I am not sure why this TFR didn't show up on the flight briefing but I think they should. Although DET tried to warn me to get me out quicker; I didn't need to be talking to anyone when I got into the TFR and never would have even known I was in it. I did not listen to the ATIS at DET (since I wasn't planning on landing there) but I later found out the information was not there also.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reports inadvertently entering a TFR for a sports event. DET Tower had issued an advisory prior to TFR entry then issued instructions to exit quickly. The TFR was not included in the preflight briefing and did not show up on the moving map display.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Float
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Airfield operations have found 5 amphibian float plugs on the runway over a 3 month period. We operate Wipair amphibian floats with rubber sea & air removable plugs. We have replaced the removable plugs with permanent ball valve type plugs and used adhesive to prevent separation from the aircraft. The cost was substantial to replace all plugs. Recommend tracking at airports with heavy seaplane use to determine if float manufacturer should design a system that will be less susceptible to FOD hazards. We are not the only amphibian operator at this airport but hope to mitigate the possibility of leaving FOD on the runway.

Callback: The reporter stated that the 2' plugs are removed prior to each flight in order to pump the float compartments dry. Because the plugs may be removed several times a day; they must be easily installed and removed. The reporter suggested a threaded plug with a half twist to secure. Occasionally a plug will pop out sitting on the ramp as air in a compartment expands during the day. Airfield Operations is concerned because his company's float planes land on the same runways as air carrier jets and if a plug pops out on landing that can be FOD.



Synopsis: Reporter stated five Wipair amphibian rubber sea and air float plugs were found as FOD on the airport's runway. The rubber plugs were replaced with permanent ball valve plugs secured with adhesive which allows the float compartments to be pumped dry prior to each flight.