elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On Departure off of Runway 17R in DFW on the AKUNA9 SID; the FO (First Officer) side Radar Altimeter (RA) displayed a flag; and the Captain side RA displayed roughly 200-300 ft. higher than the FO side. This flag was displayed for approximately 5-10 seconds; and then resumed as normal. The first indication of an anomaly occurred around 2;000 ft. MSL; or 1;500 AGL. Possible 5G interference departing DFW. Delay implementation of 5G service until all issues with radar altimeters and transport category aircraft have been dealt with.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported encountering possible 5G interference affecting the radio altimeter while departing from DFW.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to IAH we were at FL380 filed for the ZEEKK1 STAR. Enroute to the DLAKE fix we were reassigned the DOOBI2 STAR direct JERNY. We both understood we were cleared to descend via the STAR to 8000 feet so when VNAV started the descent from FL380 I called Houston Center letting them know. They called back saying negative and what I thought was clearance to maintain FL370 but the call was partially blocked. The Captain started a climb back to FL380 and we also received a TA for traffic 500 feet below. ATC called back and clarified we were to maintain FL380. The lowest altitude seen was FL375. After clearance to descend we were unable to make the altitude restriction at BEATL and I notified ATC. The rest of the flight was uneventful. Contributing factors were the short-notice change in the planned STAR and the distraction of loading; reviewing and briefing the new STAR; hearing other aircraft cleared to 'Descend VIA' and possibly the expectation our clearance was the same.This event could have been prevented by clarifying the clearance before descending and listening better to the clearance being aware of a potential expectancy from multiple prior 'Descend VIA' clearances.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported an altitude deviation on arrival to IAH that stemmed from a misunderstanding of the clearance.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When cleared for visual approach; 12L at MSP; pilot flying put 1;500 in ALT window. While descending and pointing at the approach end of the runway; we noticed that we were approaching 1;000 FT AGL so we leveled off and finished configuring. Tower then told us of our 'low altitude warning'; we continued to the runway; fully configured and had a normal/uneventful visual approach and landing. When on visual approaches; dial in FAF [altitude] or greater in the MCP window.


Second narrative: Cleared for visual approach for 12L at MSP; pilot flying selected 1;500 FT in MCP window. While descending and configuring for landing we realized we were approaching 1;000 FT AGL. Leveled off and finished configuring. Tower issued low altitude alert and we confirmed runway in sight on visual approach. Uneventful stable approach and visual landing from that point.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reports getting low during a visual approach and leveling off at 1;000 AGL to finish configuring. ATC issues a low altitude warning.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ramp notified Flight Deck that 'aircraft was ramp ready for push all doors closed.' We called for push clearance and completed checklist and preparations for push. Contacted ramp and advised brakes released and cleared to push with push instructions. Ramp confirmed but didn't push. I asked ramp why we weren't pushing he advised there was a loading problem and he would be back. I cancelled our push clearance and made a PA to passengers. After ten minutes and hadn't heard from ramp I contacted the Load Planner on my cell phone. He advised that the ramp had improperly loaded cans which would prevent approximately 6 cans from being secured on the floor grid; which would allow them to shift aft on rotation. This obviously would put the aircraft out of C.G. and possibly make the aircraft uncontrollable. Finally another Ramp Agent advised that the original ramp crew was gone and that they are going to download and reload the cans properly. This process took approximately 30 minutes to accomplish. This issue with this is that it was not the first or only time this exact incident had taken place as the Captain experienced the same issue only a few days before. That fact only takes this situation to a conclusion that we have a serious ramp training issue or this incident had another motive. Regardless; this is extremely concerning and the safety and operational trust issue is not acceptable.




Synopsis: The crew of a B767 was delayed at the gate after receiving push back clearance because it was discovered that the cargo had been loaded improperly and unsafely.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G MYF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Parked
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was a drone flying over parked aircraft at MYF airport. East of and directly over the FBO building. We witnessed 2 flights of the drone as we were securing our aircraft after completing our flight. The drone was reported to the police during its first flight; and then again when it came back during its second flight. Unknown if they located anyone connected to it.Drone appeared to be about 150 feet above the ground at its highest; there was no NOTAM regarding drone flight occurring at the airport. The drone made multiple passes in an east to west and back during its flights over parked aircraft. I was able to hear the motors of the drone during both of its flight. The drone flew over parked aircraft for about 5 minutes during each flight; while aircraft were actively landing at the airport and making radio position reports.The drone had red and green lights allowing easy visibility against a black sky to see it turn and track it as it made its multiple passes over parked aircraft and then exited to the south appearing to land at an office building.




Synopsis: Pilot tying down his aircraft reported sighting a drone flying over parked aircraft at MYF at night. No NOTAMs were in effect for these flights.
Date: 201601
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During USB (Upper Side Band) Mods; there is a chance I could have routed USB wires onto or near FQIS (Fuel Quantity and Indication System) bundle on the right side run to First Officer in the E&E (Electronic and Equipment) to the Forward wheel well. I was not aware of the FQIS wire bundle location and could have routed wires with the improper clearance and or sleeving. I realized I could have made the error when I read the current USB Mod task card which stated look for FQIS bundle and make sure the proper clearance is used when running the right side.




Synopsis: B737 Maintenance Technician reported they may have incorrectly routed wires for aircraft Mod.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: INS / IRS / IRU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the mid point we got an FMC message 'Verify Pos: IRS IRS.' We checked the POS SHIFT page; left IRS was at 26 NM and increasing. All other positions were within limits. ATC and Dispatch were notified at that time. ANP never was larger than 0.02. We referenced the Flight Handbook Supplemental Procedures section. In addition we made several extra plots using the right IRS from the overhead panel as a backup on our position. Aircraft position was never in doubt. Once over land we got an IRS fault with loss of the Captains PFD. We ran the QRH and made an un-eventful landing. An Emergency was declared with ATC after failure of the left IRS with the loss of the Captains PFD.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain experiences the loss of a single IRS on an over water flight; just past the mid point; and continues to destination.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft swap and we met crew who had just flown the aircraft we were receiving. They informed us of a possible problem with the load planning calculations on weight and balance on their previous flights in this aircraft. Therefore; my Captain and I thoroughly went through all of the preset numbers in the FMS such as Basic Operating Weight; etc. and confirmed all to be correct. Additionally we did a hand written weight and balance as a precaution. We determined the weights to be different by a few hundred pounds so we therefore used the more conservative and accurate hand written form for our flight. Once at cruise and en route decided to try to determine where the error was coming from. We discovered that the error was in the Zero Fuel Weight but could not exactly figure where. We suspected that the load planning numbers were wrong for the passenger weights somewhere and as it turns out we hear that was the case; specifically section C passenger weights.




Synopsis: A CRJ200 flight crew determined the FMS Zero Fuel Weight calculations were incorrect by several hundred pounds; data determining passenger weights was apparently incorrect.
Date: 201501
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Please note that I could only select one flight but this applies to all my flights on an Airbus. I was feeling fatigued; had a major headache and felt very nauseous. I discovered that my flying partners also had headaches and one of them explained to me that the pilots had been instructed by the company to provide less oxygen to the cabin. I was in disbelief but upon asking the flight deck it was indeed confirmed. I cannot imagine who would think that this was acceptable. We are on our feet all day and at the very least we deserve oxygen! This trip had very little rest after the first night and it also brings up the subject of duty days. I believe that we deserve no less than 15 hours for a layover. The time it takes to get to the hotel and actually in your room and then the time it takes to report for duty the following day is not even considered. We are not machines and all the studies state that the required minimum amount of sleep is 8 hours. We deserve to have adequate rest and there is no question that we deserve to have adequate oxygen in order to perform better and feel better.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant complains of a headache and is informed by another Flight Attendant that the pilots had been instructed by the company to provide less oxygen to the cabin.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center MMEX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Leaving MMMX on OMPUT departure; chart 10-3 shows a speed constraint of 200 knots until D6 MEX. No other speed constraints are mentioned on chart; or 10-7 pages. Out of 10;000 feet we wondered why FMGC speed stayed at 250 knots and were prepared to intervene with a higher speed but didn't. Passing 18;000 the speed jumped up to a normal climb; and we remained in Managed Speed. Turns out there are other speed constraints out of MMMX; but they are only found on the 10-1R Radar Minimum Altitudes chart; which isn't something we'd normally look for on an RNAV departure. That chart shows 200 knots to D10 or 10;500 feet and 250 knots to D30 or 18;000 feet. Once again; neither are referenced on any departure; or other publication. Since the 200 knot to D6 speed limit is on the 10-3 departures page; it lends a false sense of security that this is the only speed constraint that applies. Thankfully the FMGC knew; and we remained in compliance.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported confusion due to the aircraft complying with altitude and speed restrictions which were not published on their chart.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aerofoil Ice System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Chart Or Publication; MEL; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ had terrible weather. We were already hours late when our aircraft arrived. The previous crew wrote up wing anti- ice not working. Outstation Maintenance arrived; and Dispatch and I determined that we could depart with a MEL (Minimum Equipment List) that allows us to fly in icing conditions. MEL was VERY complex and confusing. It required us to start a [B737] Max 8 with an air cart and start the number 2 engine first. I was concerned about the Safety of doing that in the dark and in heavy rain; so I made sure the ground crew and I were completely confident in our procedures. A new release with MEL arrived; logbook was completed by Outstation Maintenance; and we began the process of starting the number 2 engine. During that time; we also were dealing with three different runway changes at ZZZ (XXL then XYL then XZL) which also meant three different SIDS (Standard instrument Departure) and complete re-briefing of takeoff; departure and engine out procedures. Also had to coordinate a crossbleed start. Then; our release expired and we had to get with Dispatch to reload the flight. Amid all these distractions; we didn't realize that Maintenance never placed a sticker in the flight deck or logbook. I reviewed the logbook after Maintenance was done; but totally forgot about the stickers. I guess the major distraction was how the MEL and the MAX 8 AOM (Aircraft Operations Manual) differed with each other on this procedure; and lack of clear directions on working with this MEL. Flight was completed in ZZZ1 and we went to the hotel. I think a clearer AOM or MEL is needed on this problem.




Synopsis: B737 MAX Captain reported departing with deferred maintenance and complex MEL; but noticed MEL sticker was not properly applied.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While doing the demo the B Flight Attendant (FA) noticed a child in Row X of age required to wear a mask was not wearing one. The B FA asked her to put her mask back on. She complied; but later during  the flight the same child and adult accompanying her consciously removed their mask despite being told 5 times that they were required. However this was a XX minute flight so I informed the Captain on arrival that there was an issue regarding a noncompliant passenger. He agreed that getting a Supervisor was needed.  I let the agent who met the flight know that we needed a Supervisor. She sent the Station Manager before the deplaning process happened. The Captain made an announcement to re-inform the passengers that masks are required throughout the flight. The same passenger proceeded to deplane without a mask while the Captain observed and then she hurried up and put it back on.  Nevertheless; the manager informed us that her record would be flagged and she had a conversation with her.  We later notice her in baggage claim yet again without a mask.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported passenger was non-compliant with face mask policy.