elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I instructed Aircraft X to expect a visual approach and to maintain 12;000 feet. While in an 11;300 MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude); I vectored the aircraft to a heading of 270 to follow faster jet traffic from the opposite direction. Several calls followed over the shout line; including multiple coordination's from Center where training was taking place; from the Tower where training was taking place; as well as multiple special requests from various general aviation aircraft in my airspace. Two miles from the boundary with a lower 8;400 feet. MVA I instructed Aircraft X to descend and maintain 9;000 feet.= with the expectation that he would descend slowly and cross the airspace boundary above the 11;300 feet. MVA restriction. Instead; he descended quickly and ended up at 10;900 feet approximately one half mile from the lower MVA boundary. I should have instructed Aircraft X to maintain 12;000 feet or at least 11;300 feet. until crossing the MVA boundary before instructing him to descend. I also should have spoken to the pilot and made him a priority rather than fielding multiple calls from multiple trainees and allowing myself to become distracted from positively controlling the aircraft.




Synopsis: ABQ TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended at a quicker rate than expected and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft struck by [another air carrier].


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported being struck by another air carrier which was taxiing on a perpendicular taxiway.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737-900
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: B737-800 was vectored to an ILS Runway 16L approach and cleared for such. B737-900 was vectored in behind B737-800 with the intent to conduct a dual dependent ILS approach to Runway 16R. I had established vertical separation while vectoring the B737-900 onto the final approach course. We were using 'FUSED' RADAR display which has an undesirable characteristic of 'target hopping'; an erratic flight path. I misjudged the distance and turned the aircraft in too close to successfully complete the approach. I broke him off to the southwest when I determined it would not work out. Separation was lost during the escape maneuver. FUSION RADAR sometimes causes a track to display as much as 1/2 mile from actual position. I have seen 'jumps' into adjacent finals followed by accurate depiction of aircraft position. I misjudged rate of turn and wind effects in this situation. [I need to] be more conservative in vectoring aircraft into position for dual-dependent ILS approaches; particularly during wind conditions such as were present.




Synopsis: S46 Controller expressed concern regarding the operational characteristic of 'FUSED' RADAR; noting the targets 'jump' making it difficult to insure proper instructions are issued.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: 2 team members that are separated for social distance in accordance with CDC guidance were paired to work together. Which brought them to be close to each other less than the 6 feet [not in accordance with] the government requirement.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported two team members were less than 6 feet apart and not in accordance with social distancing government guidelines.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As [aircraft] was being loaded; a cart was brought to my airplane that contained a bunch of dry ice boxes. 16 boxes in total; each containing a reported 18kg of dry ice. I multiplied 18 by 16 and got 288kg. I remembered that there had been an alert bulletin released recently that limited the  Aircraft X to what I thought I remembered was 320kg of dry ice; and I confirmed this number with a pilot standing near me. However I didn't recall that the limit was in pounds; not kilograms. So I completed the PNF; submitted it to Dispatch via email and completed the flight as scheduled. I then received an email several days later from the director of safety asking to confirm the weight of the dry ice; we spoke on the phone and he informed me that the limit was in fact 320lbs and not 320kg. We discussed the issue and I now have this number etched in my brain.[Weight limit issue clarified] when the director of safety spoke with me on the phone about the discrepancy.[Captain further stated the following statements]. Instead of breaking out my GOM or confirming in the hazmat binder; I verbally discussed the weight with another pilot and thought that 320kg was the correct limit for the  Aircraft X. This was compounded by the fact that the jet was several hours late and thus everyone was in an enormous rush to get the cargo loaded and sent on its way.I felt rather crestfallen; as I pride myself on doing everything in exactly the same way and by the regs/procedures to the letter. When in doubt I will always refer to documentation in the future instead of verbally discussing it with someone or relying solely on my memory.Confirming with actual paperwork instead of verbally with another pilot. As I am the PIC the responsibility falls directly on my shoulders to ensure each flight is flown in compliance with company policy/procedure and the FARs and I shouldn't rely on my own memory and word of mouth information when I have questions with regard to important matters such as this.




Synopsis: Captain reported aircraft departed without positive confirmation of Hazmat cargo limitation. Limitation later confirmed cargo within limitations.
Date: 201509
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Captain was the pilot monitoring; I (the first officer) was the pilot flying; and the other first officer was on rest in the cabin. One flight mechanic was also on rest in the cabin; and the other flight mechanic was sitting in the observer's seat.I heard a loud bang in front of me; immediately noticed the windshield condition; and brought it to the attention of the Captain and mechanic. I called for the window damage QRH while scanning the pressurization panel on the overhead; all pressurization indications were normal. The QRH procedure of windshield: cracked or shattered; pressurization normal; and no damage; bulging; or cracking on the inner pane. Result: no adverse condition; end of checklist.Having finished the QRH; we briefly checked the Dispatch Deviations Guide (DDG) and found that there was no relief for any type of cockpit window damage. Next we contacted dispatch via the Satcom phone. The Satcom connection dropped out three times while the captain was mid-conversation with the dispatcher. We decided to change from the handheld Satcom phone to the Satcom connection through the center Control Display Unit (CDU) and our audio panels. After that the connection was better and we conveyed all of the required information to our dispatcher and the dispatch manager.After that the dispatchers attempted to contact maintenance control for a three way call but they were unsuccessful on their end. We concurred with dispatch that continuing the flight was a safe course of action; and asked that when they received maintenance control's concurrence that they ACARS us a message. Soon afterwards we received maintenance concurrence via ACARS and continued the flight normally. When the other first officer had finished his rest and returned to the cockpit we briefed him on the entire event.In my opinion; the captain did a superb job of communication with all affected individuals both onboard the aircraft and in the [Operations Center]; with proper priority; in the right order; and with care for the whole operation.Additionally; the SATCOM communication issues and inability to establish a three-way call with Maintenance Control were real obstacles. Approaching Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS) airspace and trying to communicate an aircraft defect is a bad time to have trouble getting everyone on the same page.




Synopsis: An air carrier Pilot reported a failed cockpit window in cruise and describe the challenges to communicate with the company operations center to confirm continuing to planned destination.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On left base to a visual approach; to Runway 31; we had a near miss with a drone at 3700 feet MSL. I first saw the drone at our left 10 o'clock; and approximately 50 to 100 ft away (hard to tell without knowing the actual size of the thing). It had a white body with blue highlights and black propeller guards. Not sure if it had 4 or 6 props. I immediately notified Approach. After landing; Ground gave us a phone number to make a report.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain flying the Runway 31 visual approach at BNA reported a UAV near miss at 3;700 feet.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEG.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Musketeer 23
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E SEG
ATC / advisory: CTAF SEG
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After uneventful flight to IPT and landing then form IPT to SEG and landing; all on left tank (started with approx. 25 gals L & R tanks; changed to Right Tank before takeoff from SEG.  On climbout at approx 900 AGL; engine stopped.  I immediately lowered the nose and turned back toward the SEG airport to enter downwind for Runway 17; if able.  At the same time I also switched tanks back to the left tank; checked to see if the electric fuel pump was on (it was) and applied carburetor heat and the engine immediately came alive.  I kept a closed approach to Runway 17 (no other traffic); and announced my downwind; base; and final leg as as I normally have in the past and landed uneventfully.  I then did a run-up with both tanks and had no problems.  I then shut down and observed the engine for anything unusual.  Everything appeared to be fine.  I called my Mechanic and we discussed the entire event and he said there may be a problem with the right tank and to fly the airplane back to ZZZ (15 mi) on the left tank (which had plenty of fuel).  After successful run-up; and checking that the left tank was selected; I took off and completed the flight with no problems.  My Mechanic met me and again questioned me; and as of this writing is troubleshooting; what appeared to be temporary fuel starvation involving the right tank; which had plenty of fuel.




Synopsis: Musketeer pilot reports switching to the full fuel tank prior to takeoff then having the engine quit at 900 feet AGL.  The fuel selector is placed back to the left tank and carburetor heat is applied.  The engine immediately catches and a precautionary landing ensues.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
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: Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
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: In-flight
Contributing factors: Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Aircraft was in level flight at 33;000 feet when the captain's side windshield shattered. Followed Emergency/Non-Normal Checklist and descended down to 25;000 feet and adjusted cabin pressure to 6.2 ^p. Monitored situation and continued on to planned destination. No further incident or action.My only concern was the structure of the checklist. The sixth item on the checklist states:DESCENT..............Initiate if required.There is no guidance in the checklist advising you why you would initiate a descent. The only guidance is in a memo dated back [a few months back]. It was my quick-thinking first officer who had this memo stored on his iPad that remembered it. I remembered the memo but did not remember the specific guideance for making a command decision. It would have been very valuable to have the information about getting the cabin pressure to a ^p of 6.2 written in the checklist itself.




Synopsis: Upon completion of QRH procedure for a cracked windshield; crew of CRJ-900 remembered a company memo with clarifying info.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [We had a] normal; short field; static takeoff. [There was] high terrain in vicinity; charted MSA over 10;000 feet. Noted the red GR light did not extinguish; focused on climbing turn to cleared route. [We were] cleared to 9;000 feet. Nearing 9;000 feet we began to discuss; and were cleared to 11;000 feet. Discussed; and accepted; told ATC we had a light and wanted to stay at that altitude. They provided delay vectors. We discussed fuel; terrain; speed; limitations and altitudes; and noted we were VMC on top. PNF pulled and reviewed the checklist. We cycled the gear; and completed the checklist; no change. ATC queried our situation; and we told them. They requested fuel in pounds and souls on board. We discussed where to go; and decided to call Maintenance Control. The flight phone did not work. The cell phone did; briefly; and Maintenance said to cycle gear again; we did and lost cell phone connection. Email [was] sent [asking] 'where should we go?' [Email] answer [was to proceed to] a nearby airport. We discussed; told ATC and were immediately given a heading to join the Loc; 30 miles out. We did but did not feel ready. We took a delay vector; reviewed the situation; put the gear down and slowly verified that all the indications were normal and took vectors. ATC advised CFR would be along runway. We accepted the landing clearance and stated to them all indications were normal. The landing was uneventful; and we taxied into an FBO. CFR surrounded us. We shut down; looked at gear and noticed the tire skid mark on door referenced above. CFR took notes and asked questions.


Second narrative: [Narrative contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A BAe 125 Series 800 right gear warning light remained illuminated after takeoff so the crew diverted to a nearby airport for a safe landing.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I worked Flight ABC out of ZZZZ; and operated out of a remote gate. The flight was full; and I was forced to ride on a packed bus to the plane from the gate crammed in with all of the passengers on my flight. This made me extremely uncomfortable given that we are putting ourselves at a much higher risk of being exposed [to the Coronavirus] during a 4 day trip rather than staying at home.  Crew should be given dedicated transport to airplanes at remote gates separated from passengers.




Synopsis: First Officer reported concerns with having to ride a bus full of crammed passengers from the gate to the aircraft increasing their risk of being exposed to Coronavirus.