elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202011
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Off Duty
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The last few month wearing a mask has affected my health.  I have had constant headaches; brain fog; difficult concentrating and exhaustion.  My eyesight is also affected when wearing a mask.  The depletion of oxygen; increased exposure to carbon dioxide may be to blame.  I fear risk of infection only because we are all touching our faces more than EVER with masks on.   I used an oximeter to check my levels on a deadhead segment from ZZZ to ZZZ1.  In hotel room [it was] 99; when on flight [it was] 89-94 for just a 2 hour flight.  We are masked for 10-15 [hours] lately; sometimes 5 days a week.  I have noticed I'm also sneezing a lot more; which; now finding out may be the poisonous spray being sprayed on the planes.  Every flight attendants health is being affected.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concerns relating to health and oxygen levels in the body due to constantly wearing a face mask while working.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Military was jamming frequencies. In ZLC; Sectors 34; 44; 47 were affected. About 30 to 40 aircraft were in these sectors at the time. ZLA and ZOA Centers were also affected by event. We had no mission sheet on radio jamming; only GPS jamming. Military jammed our frequency causing loss of communications up to 10 minutes. This happened for about 1-2 hours. We refused to attempt miles in trail restrictions to SFO; an operational deviation in my experience. We had a mission sheet on GPS jamming; but not one for frequency jamming. In my opinion; this caused a significant delay in stopping jamming. Recommendation; Mission sheets involving all types jamming including contact information must be available prior to mission start. Anything else degrades the safety of the NAS.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller described a loss of frequencies event when the military; coordinated to 'jam' GPS signals only; were also jamming radio communications.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After declaring an emergency for a split flap condition; we diverted and executed a Flap less than 1; LED full landing IAW our QRH. Landing was uneventful; and we had informed Tower that we would like to stop straight ahead on the runway and let emergency equipment take a look at the aircraft for blown tires; damage; etc. We brought the aircraft to a stop on runway and were told to switch to Ground frequency; which we did. We were not able to communicate with emergency vehicles effectively because Ground Control was giving a continuous stream of taxi directions to a multitude of aircraft. Other than occasional one or two word exchanges; we had no contact with fire trucks at all; and did not know their position. We finally switched back to Tower and asked if there was a discrete frequency we could use to coordinate with fire/rescue. Tower said that there was not; but to go back to Ground. After about 10 minutes we finally learned that our aircraft was OK to continue to the gate; which we did. In talking with the fire/rescue operators afterward; they acknowledged frustration with not having a dedicated frequency and having to work around Ground Control. The airport really needs to have a more effective means of communicating between emergency aircraft and fire/rescue. The situation we encountered was unacceptable.




Synopsis: A B737-300's trailing edge flaps did not extend on approach; but the leading edge devices did. An emergency was declared; the QRH completed and a successful landing completed but the crew had communications difficulty with Air Crash Fire crews.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During landing; airplane skidded to the left of [the runway]. No major damage; no injury. Approach was normal and stabilized with no problems. Initial touchdown onto the runway surface was good; but then the airplane began to swerve more and more erratically.I believe that I did not maintain proper directional control over the aircraft. The nose wheel was lowered too soon and there wasn't enough positive counter-reaction when the aircraft initially began to swerve. Additional instruction is required to maintain positive control over the aircraft throughout the landing phase; especially when in crosswind conditions.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C172 lost directional control during landing due to nosewheel steering technique in crosswind conditions.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a multi engine training flight; I simulated an engine failure on the takeoff roll by retarding the right mixture to Idle/Cutoff after the student had applied takeoff power (as I had been trained to do in my MEI training). The student failed to recover properly from the simulation and would not release the controls after I instructed him to do so. I quickly retarded the left mixture to Idle/Cutoff; but the aircraft was already exiting the runway onto the grass; destroying a runway light. I had given the student ground instruction on multi-engine aerodynamics; and we had discussed what to do in the event of engine failures; both on the ground and in flight. The student was using a checklist and had read aloud the proper procedures for recovering from an engine failure during the takeoff roll; and we had discussed it prior to the starting the engines and again prior to taking the runway. I learned that simulating an engine failure on the takeoff roll during the first flight is not the safest way to conduct flight training and that I should be more alert for students to improperly correct for adverse situations in order to conduct safer flight training. The airplane was mildly damaged; only propeller blades that needed replaced or filed down and re-balanced; and the aircraft was operational again within several days.




Synopsis: PA-44-180 instructor reported the aircraft departed the runway; causing minor damage; when power was cut to simulate an engine failure.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MQY.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The tower issued two low altitude alerts during practice instrument approaches. 1. The first alert was in the final phase of the GPS 32 approach. I had already broken out of the bases and was in visual conditions above the MDA with the runway in sight. The VASI indicated I was on the proper glide path. I did not understand why the alert was issued but initiated a climb and missed approach. 2. The second low altitude alert occurred on the next approach; my last of six that day. On the GPS 19 approach the tower issued the alert between as I was descending from 2;200 feet to 1;140 feet. I immediately began a climb and reached 1;500 feet right before I reached an intersection. I landed without incident. Upon landing I reviewed the approach chart and realized I had inadvertently started my altitude step downs one waypoint too soon. As a result I should have been at 2;200 feet and then started my decent to 1;140 feet. I had already started the decent to 1;140. In additional I realized during the final phase of the approach that I had descended below the circling minimums for the approach prior to landing on runway 32. I immediately corrected this error by climbing higher on downwind while circling.Realizing the critical nature of my mistakes; I am scheduling additional refresher training with my CFII.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cirrus SR-22 received an altitude alert for an unknown reason; which led to a missed approach. On the subsequent approach; ATC issued a second altitude alert due to the pilot's inadvertent premature descent.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BFL.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E BFL
ATC / advisory: TRACON BFL
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was flying three passengers on a nice VFR day. We were southbound at 9500 approaching BFL when all three of my passengers noticed and brought to my attention a black-and-red color drone which passed right underneath us; traveling opposite direction; off our right wing; about 100 below. I was scanning the flight instruments at that moment and did not see the drone. We were cruising at approx 175 KTAS; and no evasive action was taken. I questioned my passengers to make sure it was not a military UAV or a manned aircraft because I was very surprised to see a recreational drone at 9400 MSL; and all three of my passengers were absolutely positive; and described it as a medium size black-and-red drone. I immediately reported the near miss to TRACON and we continued on uneventfully. I'm very concerned about seeing a recreational drone at such high altitude where myself and others are routinely flying at high speeds; and have little to no chance to see a small flying object and avoid a collision with it.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a NMAC with drone at 9500 ft.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After landing on Runway 32 at PIT; we were cleared to taxi; 'N; C; V1 to the ramp.' As we taxied on C; I was looking for intersection V1. I never saw it until I was abeam Taxiway V. I stopped the aircraft and asked Ground if they still wanted us to go via V1. Ground said yes; so I made a left turn onto V and a right on V1 to the ramp. I missed the fact that Taxiway C turns into V1 and there are no markings on the taxiway to show that. The commercially provided airport page is too congested to read with certainty.It would have been of great help if the airport would clearly mark (either on the taxiway or via a taxi sign) Taxiway V1 in a manner visible from C. I did taxi slow and; in fact; stopped the aircraft; but never saw a sign designating (or pointing to) Taxiway V1 until I was past it and abeam V. I did see the sign showing a slight right turn to stay on C; but never saw anything to show me that I needed to go straight ahead.


Second narrative: The Captain asked me to confirm V1. I saw the Taxiway C sign; but no signage for V1. I pointed toward Taxiway C and we made a slight right jink to stay on Taxiway C. Simultaneously; we noticed the Taxiway V1 sign; which was facing perpendicular to us while on Taxiway C. We made a quick left turn onto Taxiway V and entered the ramp through V1 and contacted the Ramp Controller.


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew; cleared to the ramp via taxiways N; C; V1 after landing on Runway 32 was unable to read the Taxiway V1 sign as they approached it on Taxiway C.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working mid shift early morning with little to no traffic.  Work low altitude sectors on adjacent scope to high altitude.  Had Aircraft X on low altitude scope; changed his frequency 3 times; forgot about him.  Deviated adjacent ARTCC with no coordination and no handoff because aircraft had a 'carrot' indicating no auto-hand.  We should depict both high and low altitude sectors on one scope to create a smoother and easier scan so an event like this would not go unnoticed.




Synopsis: ARTCC controller reported working very light traffic on two displays during midshift. An aircraft was forgotten and violated adjacent airspace.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared to land; I was assisting with radios. Pilot flying put the gear down; no green lights were noted and the 'In-transit light' remained illuminated. I began to assist the pilot flying with troubleshooting when I noticed and smelled smoke beginning to billow into the cabin and I felt intense heat behind my legs. We opened the storm window and door immediately to funnel the smoke out. We confirmed we felt there was a fire with a heavy amount of smoke. We also felt the potential fire situation trumped the gear issue. We then declared an emergency and advised Tower we were turning to the runway closest to us- 27L and he gave us clearance to land. I continued to help with radio communications as the Pilot in Command of the aircraft remained flying. On short final I inquired about the gear being up or down and the Tower said that the gear 'appeared to be down.' I continued to hold the door open in case of gear collapse on touchdown since an emergency evacuation was probable. The left main and nose gear touched down but the right gear seemingly failed instantly; followed in turn by the left and nose gears collapsing. When the aircraft came to a stop we made an emergency evacuation (myself first out of the right seat; then pilot flying from the left seat.) The third occupant exited out the back. There were no injuries. Because of the use of CRM type management what could've been a serious accident turned into a normal landing where the gear collapsed on touchdown.




Synopsis: When the Beech Baron's landing gear failed to extend normally and the occupants noted smoke; heat and feared a possible fire they declared an emergency and landed as soon as possible. Upon touchdown all three landing gear collapsed and the occupants evacuated.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working a small inbound push when RFD ATCT called to let me know that there would be jumpers at Beloit; WI up to 14;000. I then issued the inbounds routing to keep them south of the jump area. When the jump plane came on my scope; it was actually about 7 miles south of the field and was heading further south. I issued traffic to the first affected aircraft. Air Carrier X stated that he was in the clouds and would take a vector if needed. At the time the jump plane (supposedly VFR) was climbing slightly southeast of Air Carrier X's flight path. The jump plane then turned and I suggested that the Air Carrier X turn 20 degrees left which he did. Air Carrier X again stated that he was IMC and that the 'VFR' had to be in the clouds. The two aircraft were a mile apart and 100 FT apart and Air Carrier X never saw the jump aircraft. The next plane behind Air Carrier X was Air Carrier Y who also said he was IMC when I issued the traffic to him. Again; Air Carrier Y never saw the jump aircraft and passed within a few miles and a few hundred feet of the aircraft; a vector was not need this time. The next 2 inbounds did see the jump aircraft when he broke out of the clouds. Air Carrier Z stated that the tops were around 13;000 and ragged to the north but were definitely solid to the south where the jump aircraft had climbed. The jump aircraft were talking to RFD Approach and I think if we were communicating with them at the Center we would have a better idea of what they were doing. Also; if they would stay near where they are jumping; it would be easier for us to vector aircraft around them. Lastly; the jump aircraft; while VFR; should not be climbing and turning through solid cloud layers.




Synopsis: ZAU Controller described a potential conflict event between ORD IFR Air Carrier arrivals and a parachute jump aircraft; the reporter suggesting the jump aircraft should be on the Center frequency.