elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; 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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed ZZZ Runway XX on an IFR flight plan via the ZZZ SID. As I was turning left to intercept the ZZZ vortac 114 radial at approximately 3;500 to 4;000 ft.; I was issued the flowing climb instruction; 'expedite thru 6;000 climb and maintain one-one thousand.' I acknowledged this clearance and immediately began an intense visual scan outside the aircraft for traffic because of the Controller's unusual request for an expedited climb. I did not properly include my navigation receiver as part of my scan as I was now concentrating outside the plane where VMC prevailed at that time. Less than a minute later; the Controller issued a 'low altitude alert' to which I responded that I was in VMC and had terrain in sight. I was not aware at this time that I was off course from the radial specified in the SID. Approximately 1 minute later; as I was climbing thru 6;000 ft.; I was subsequently issued a radar Vector to 'ZZZZZ intersection; flight planned route;' Post flight review of 'Flight Aware' tracking showed my flight east of the ZZZ 114 radial and return after the low altitude from the Controller. I should have remained focused on tracking the ZZZ 114 radial after departure and not allowed the unusual expeditious climb request from the Controller distract me away from my primary function of navigating. Also; if the Controller witnessed my flight deviating left off course towards terrain; it would have been better for her to have notified me of a course error rather than issue an expedited climb instruction.




Synopsis: A pilot reported they flew off course while departing on a SID and received a Low Altitude warning and expedited climb instruction from ATC.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Diverted to [an alternate airport] as the result of fuel valve malfunction (outer to inner tank valves; right wing tank). This [has] been a recurring maintenance issue on this aircraft. It required a repetitive inspection and maintenance action prior to each departure. We had a mechanic assigned to travel with us as contract maintenance was unavailable. Prior to departure our mechanic experienced difficulty accomplishing the prescribed maintenance action per MEL and contacted Maintenance Control. After repeated attempts to secure the fuel valves open; the left valves indicated fully open; but the right valve indicator indicated approximately 1/2 open. Maintenance Control assured us that this was a valid position and met the criteria for the MEL action required as it allowed the fuel in the outer wing tanks to migrate to the inner wing tank; which it did. We strenuously disagreed with this assessment as it was not consistent with the previous 3 legs that we had flown this day. He insisted it was in compliance and we departed. Climbing through 10;000 feet we reviewed the systems pages and discovered that the outer to inner fuel valves had closed and there was now about 200 pounds of fuel in the outer wing tanks. As the flight progressed we noted that the outer tanks were filling at an alarming rate. In about 30 minutes we had 3;000 pounds in the outer wing tanks and felt that if if this continued we would not have enough fuel in the inner tanks to reach [destination] if the valves did not open on schedule as the result of the maintenance action performed before departure. We contacted Dispatch and suggested a diversion to [a nearby alternate]. The Dispatcher concurred and we proceeded to [divert] and landed uneventfully. The maintenance crew that met us upon reviewing the maintenance log and speaking with the Mechanic that was assigned to our trip felt that the procedure that was applied [before departure] was incorrect. [They] produced a printed page from the maintenance manual and applied the procedure with positive results. An entry was made into our logbook reflecting this assessment. We boarded our passengers and continued uneventfully.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported diverting to an alternate when their fuel system; which was on MEL restrictions; was not performing as expected.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken

Narrative: At 2 hours prior to scheduled departure time; I completed and filed a flight plan for the flight in question. Due to enroute weather; this flight was filed using a Dispatcher created route of: IAD..FLUKY..PAUKI..MOL.J22.... An hour prior to departure time; the Captain informed me that the aircraft was broken. The Coordinator arranged for an aircraft swap. The new aircraft would result in a delay of several hours. Once the swap was inputted into the Sabre System; I regenerated the flight plan; and created an amendment to the release. This flight was subsequently passed down to the late night Dispatcher. During the regeneration of the flight plan; the Dispatcher created route was lost; and replaced with the company default route. The original route was still on file with the FAA. It is not Dispatch policy to generate a new ATC strip for tail swaps. As a result of this; the crew was 'Cleared as Filed.' However; the route on the paperwork did not match the route as seen by ATC.This is an error with several causes: First of all; as a hub coordinator; my time on the dispatch desk is not sufficient to ensure I remain proficient in all the oddities of the flight planning system. This particular scenario is not covered by any manual; and it is up to the Dispatcher to remember that the system behaves as it does. Secondly; the Dispatch workload makes it almost impossible to remember what routes have been assigned to what flights. There are just too many releases per desk. Additionally; knowing this is a potential problem; the company should implement a procedure to prevent this issue. Either require the dispatcher to remove the strip and refile during a tail swap; or require the crew to request a full route clearance when a new release is generated.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reports assigning a weather avoidance route to one of his flights then having send a new release when an aircraft swap is required. The new release defaults to the standard company route but the weather avoidance route remains on file with ATC. The crew is cleared as filed which is not the route on the current release.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Due to inoperative APU; started all engines before push back. Rain began during engine start; light to moderate and then somewhat heavy. Push back completed. It was very hard to visually identify the taxi lines. This was my first BWI trip in several years. Ground Control was helpful once we cleared the ramp area; but the taxiway markings at night coupled with significant rain make it almost impossible to see the taxiway lines. (Very similar to SJU and previously reported by this individual) I tried using the EFVS [enhanced night vision system]; but this accomplished little. The problem is poor lighting and taxiway markings/paint that is non-reflective. In my opinion; [this is] unsatisfactory and a very real safety issue. Use reflective paint.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports difficulty seeing taxiway lines at BWI at night during rain; suggesting the paint is less reflective than normal.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I issued Air Carrier X to 'Cross 10 DME at or above 2;500 FT; cleared Mount Vernon Visual Runway One.' This clearance would never have taken the pilot outside of the Class Bravo airspace. A VFR aircraft on the SFRA frequency was flying right below the Class Bravo at 2;400 FT. I issued timely traffic to the Air Carrier X pilot. The pilot received a TCAS RA from the VFR aircraft. I verified with the pilot that the TCAS told him to descend and he said yes. I informed him that he was now outside of the Class Bravo. At the time of the event; I was on position for well over an hour and a half. And there was a Class Bravo airwork plane that was flying East/West lines for the duration of my time on position that made the session very difficult. That is why it was necessary not to have the arrivals into DCA too high at all. And as I stated; I never issued anything that would have taken the aircraft outside of the Bravo and issued a traffic call about the VFR SFRA traffic. No error was made. Expand the Class Bravo 1;500 FT shelf much further south of DCA. The pilots for DCA need to be able to get low enough to make a stabilized approach.




Synopsis: PCT Controller issuing a Visual Approach to DCA noted the aircraft departing the confines of Class B in response to a TCAS RA; the reporter advocated expansion of the existing Class B airspace.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: Tower HCF
Second aircraft: PA-23 Apache/Geronimo Apache
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: A PA23 arrived on Runway 4L and was instructed to turn right at Taxiway E; hold short of Runway 4R for arriving traffic. Pilot acknowledged. While working other traffic; I turned to scan my traffic and observed the PA23 to have crossed the first hold bar and was holding at the improper hold bar. Simultaneously; my Local Assist was pointing at the aircraft to get my attention. An air carrier was on approximately a 0.75 mile final and was immediately sent around to avoid conflict; then re-sequenced by Approach. Simplify this re-occurring problem by using one hold bar; rather than two.




Synopsis: HCF Controller described a go around event in which traffic instructed to hold short of Runway 4R failed to hold at the correct hold bar; the reporter recommends using only one hold bar reduce confusion.
Date: 201703
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge; Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Twenty seconds after takeoff the B flight attendant in the AFT galley called and informed me they were smelling a distinct 'dirty sock' smell that they believed to be toxic fumes. I then called the captain; informing them of what the B flight attendant had just told me. The captain said he would call right back. About a minute later the odor had made its way through to the plane and was present in the front galley where it made me light headed and dizzy with a slight headache. The odor was noticeable to the passengers. I called the AFT galley back and they had told me they had donned oxygen. The captain soon called me back and told me we were heading back; that it would not be an emergency landing; and he would make the announcement to the passengers and we should prepare the cabin for landing. At this time said they could also smell the odor. We returned the gate where the AFT doors were disarmed and opened due to the discomfort the B/C flight attendants were experiencing. Burning eyes/skin/metal taste/dizziness. The paramedics were called to the aircraft and the flight crew decided to go to the hospital to be checked out and have their blood tested.




Synopsis: A320 Flight Attendant reported a 'dirty sock' smell in the rear of the aircraft shortly after takeoff. The Captain was informed and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The fume event was a sudden onset of a toxic acrid mix. A haze developed throughout the cabin and passengers were suddenly turning on air vents with some breathing through clothing to cover their nose and mouth. The haze immediately caused a burning sensation to the eyes; nose and throat. My sinuses also burned and the smell was overwhelming and led to a bad headache dizziness and general nausea feeling that then became a general malaise sick feeling combined with a suffocating reaction that lasted for 10 minutes till landing and then another 10 minutes for taxi in to the gate. The haze did not dissipate until the forward cabin door was opened. There were 2 other FAs sitting in the extra cabin jump seats that were sickened by this event. The pilots were notified on taxi in that we were in the midst of a fume event and they also concurred and filled out a cockpit report that they had dealt with it too. Myself and the rest of the crew did not feel well after this happened for the remainder of the duty day until the following morning.




Synopsis: A319 Flight Attendant reported sudden onset of toxic acrid fumes in the cabin resulting in health issues.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the R-Side at Spartanburg High. I accepted the hand off on a CRJ2 from Sector 50 with the aircraft showing at FL270 descending to FL250 in the Data Block. The SOP between Sector 50 and Sector 32 requires these aircraft to be level at FL250 when they cross the boundary. The aircraft checked on my frequency at FL270 with no clearance for lower. I had to call and get control and expedite the aircraft through FL260 because I had crossing traffic at FL270. The aircraft missed by six miles. 'Dressing up' Data Blocks is rampant at ZTL. I don't know for sure that the Sector 50 Controller did this. Perhaps the pilot of the aircraft missed a clearance. I'm pretty sure the Data Block was dressed up. If so; this is intentional violation of the 7110.65. Why is it any different than intentionally violating separation standards? It can lead quite quickly to a loss of separation.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller voiced concern regarding an adjacent controller allegedly 'dressing-up' a Data Block to indicate procedures were being issued/followed when in fact had not; compromising airspace integrity.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Captain and I took off Runway 24 at TEB via the RUUDY FOUR Departure. On departure; we were having trouble with our FMS and getting our flight director to sync up. Our altitude was set to level off at 1;500 FT. At 500 FT I called the '500 FT for 1;500 FT' callout and verified the 'Alt Select' button was Armed. Shortly after; I put my head down to verify the FMS was flying the correct course to intercept the 260 degree course to WENTZ. While working the FMS; we received a call from ATC to verify our altitude. This was the point that I had realized the altitude did not capture upon reaching 1;500 FT. We deviated above our assigned altitude approximately 600-700 FT prior to immediately taking corrective action (reduced power and pitched down) to return the 1;500 FT. The Captain was under the impression he had engaged the autopilot and the altitude select was armed; however; when attempting to get the flight director to sync up; it inadvertently disengaged the 'alt select arm' button. Due to our flight director issue; I took my eyes of the instruments to attend the FMS and verify we were flying the correct departure routing. In the future; I will back up the flying pilot and personally watch the instruments to ensure we are leveling of at the assigned altitudes.




Synopsis: A CE550 Flight Director failed to sync with the FMS after departing on the TEB Runway 24 RUUDY FOUR and so a distracted crew did not detect the 1;500 FT altitude overshoot until ATC requested an altitude check.