elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Flight phase: Other Customer Service / Lobby
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Airport Personnel
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Observer

Narrative: I believe this is an ongoing issue. The bag room will park running vehicles in the bag room and the exhaust overtakes the ticket count with the smell and harmful gases. Which is probably very unhealthy for the agents work counter.




Synopsis: Ticket counter worker reported that running vehicles are being parked in the bag room and the exhaust fumes are causing an unhealthy work environment.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Encountered severe and then moderate turbulence on arrival into ZZZ1 in vicinity of ZZZZZ intersection on ZZZZZ1 arrival. Notified ATC. Unable to hold altitude initially and aircraft descended below assigned altitude with autopilot on. Autopilot disconnected so I hand flew aircraft. Requested lower altitude. Turned away from arrival northbound. After situation stabilized; turned Autopilot back on and was advised ZZZ1 no longer taking arrivals. Diverted to ZZZ2 out of caution to aircraft and passengers. Spoke with flight attendants who had been advised to have cabin ready for arrival and were seated 15 minutes prior to turbulence event. Advised no injuries to passengers aside from report of some passengers vomiting. Landed ZZZ2 without incident. Entered severe turbulence encounter in aircraft logbook. All passengers sent by ground transportation to ZZZ1. No passenger injuries. Aircraft subsequently underwent severe turbulence inspection and released back to service. Re-positioned aircraft to ZZZ1 and arrived around XA:30 am local. Cause - Large weather system that spawned convective and tornado activity in multiple states. Dynamic weather on arrival without many PIREP's - last ride report we obtained from ATC was light chop on arrival. Weather radar returns indicated light to moderate rainfall with aircraft staying on arrival ahead of us. Communication with ATC challenging with numerous aircraft on frequency. Suggestion - Update/retrofit of older weather radar sets/displays with higher resolution and return/refresh rates on older fleet would be a great improvement to safety on our fleet.




Synopsis: A320 pilot reported severe turbulence while attempting to land at original destination.  Flight was diverted to a local airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending via Dyamd2 and expecting FMS Bridge visual to 28R. The approach plate shows the routing Cedes direct Archi crossing Archi at or above 8;000 feet. The Dyamd2 shows routing Cedes to Frely to Archi; crossing Archi at 7;000 feet. When told to intercept FMS bridge routing; we asked for clarification because of the altitude differences at Archi. We asked 'Do you want us to intercept routing at Cedes?' ATC advised intercept routing at Archi. We were still descending via the Dyamd without approach clearance; so we set 7;000 feet in the altitude window as depicted on the arrival. ATC told us to stop descent when we were already somewhere below 8;000 feet. We stopped the descent; leveling at 7;200 feet. ATC advised we were supposed to have stop at 8;000 feet. We explained the the Dyamd arrival indicated 7;000 feet. ATC explained that was a mistake on the arrival chart; and that a NOTAM changed the altitude to 8;000 feet. and it would be corrected in the next revision. I had completely missed that NOTAM.


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


Synopsis: Another crew reported missing the NOTAM at SFO about the different altitudes at ARCHI on the DYAMD2 arrival and the FMS BRIDGE VISUAL to 28R.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; 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; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: First of all we have had a huge safety issue with IVANE 5 arrival and aircraft especially [type removed] busting windows at MAYOS. A lot of controllers including me are actually hesitant on giving this descend via due to all the safety issues that this arrival has given us. The number one priority of the National Airspace System is to provide safety; but we still have to give descend via to all the aircraft going to CLT when we know that this is a safety issue. That makes no sense to me. But finally I came in today to work the GVE32 sector with the CLTs and the IVANE was suspended which was a good thing. So now the restriction was MAYOS at FL220; which also doesn't make sense. I believe they should be MAYOS at FL240 so we don't have to point out a whole string of CLTs to SBV22 but that's another issue.  So I gave Aircraft X a restriction to cross MAYOS at FL220. I kept working and the next thing I know the aircraft is at MAYOS at FL265. In this case I had to rush and point him out to CLT33 hoping they don't have traffic cause I'm not talking to him and then call [Sector 29] LEEON to APPREQ him descending because he didn't meet that restriction.Have these pilots trained right.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller reports of problems with the IVANE 5 Arrival into CLT and a specific type of aircraft having problems continually making crossing restrictions. This report also removed the IVANE 5 but the aircraft in question was given a crossing restriction which they didn't meet as well.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I am submitting this report because This is the second time I've experienced this situation. After sending an email to [the] Manager the first time and not getting a response; I am submitting this report. It has been a relatively new procedure to leave hydraulic switches off during preflight inspection. It used to be that hydraulics switches were always left on. Because the hydraulic pumps were off during our preflight inspection; we did not observe the hydraulic leak that was present. During the 'Pushback' checklist when the hydraulic switches were finally turned on; we received an 'RF' message on the EICAS within about 4-5 seconds. I then contacted Maintenance Control. Upon Maintenance Technician arriving; he advised we had a serious hydraulic leak spraying fluid all over the wheel well. Long story short; we ended up being almost 2 hours delayed getting the leak repaired. If we had NOT received the 'RF' message; we would've most likely had taken off with this leak and would've gotten a B hydraulic low quantity or even worse loss of hydraulic B pressure inflight!I've asked many people in several chief pilot offices; and sent emails to training and no one has offered a reason; other than standardize with other fleet type. I believe this is a safety issue. Leaving the hydraulic pumps off during preflight makes observing possible leaks impossible.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported a change in flight deck configuration procedures could result in aircraft departing with undetected maintenance issues.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: LAS GRNPA 1 STAR; groundtrack cannot safely transition to RNAV 19L. We asked for direct to two fixes HAMIG or JOGNU on RNAV 19L but ATC said unable; follow GRNPA 1 groundtrack; cleared visual 19L. MVA is 5200 feet and STAR shows 6100 feet MEA to LEMNZ. Airport elevation is 2100 feet but you cannot lose 4000 feet in 3 miles; unsafe. My third visual with exact same problem resulting in potentially unstable approaches.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reports being cleared for the visual approach to Runway 19L via the GRNPA 1 to LEMNZ which is less than 3 NM from the runway end. STAR shows a 6100 foot MEA to LEMNZ; resulting in an unexpected close in turn to final with potential for an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff; four Caution Messages posted. They were PITOT BASE HEAT; L AOA HEAT; L STATIC HEAT and L PITOT HEAT. I consulted the QRH; and the problem persisted. I contacted Dispatch and spoke with Maintenance Control to see if they had any other ideas. They had no useful input; and I decided to return to my departure airport. There were multiple layers of clouds with a long line on thunderstorms in the area. We were unable to avoid entering a cloud and received an ICE message. I informed ATC of our problem and advised them that we needed to return to the airport. They issued a vector clearance back to the airport. ATC issued a clearance to climb. I advised that we needed to leave icing conditions; but ATC said they were unable to let us descend and they needed me to climb. Knowing that our flight instruments could become compromised; I declared an emergency to leave the IMC and icing conditions. We were given a clearance to descend. The remainder of the return flight was uneventful. The passengers; Flight Attendant; Dispatch and Maintenance were kept informed.I do not think this situation was avoidable because it was an aircraft malfunction. Looking back; the only thing I would have done different is make an earlier decision to return before contacting Maintenance.




Synopsis: When an air carrier flight crew suffered the loss of multiple pitot static system ice protection systems shortly after takeoff they had to declare an emergency with ATC in order to avoid flying through icing conditions as they returned to their takeoff airport.
Date: 201905
Location: F05.Airport, TX
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Observer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Observer
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Not sure how else to report this hazard to aircraft; and would hate to see an aircraft get destroyed or lives lost. Several new large electric wind generators have been built east/southeast of Vernon; TX/Wilbarger County Airport F05. Many of them have lights on the top; but several do not. That would seem to pose a risk to general aviation aircraft flying at night. The towers are several hundred feet tall and without beacons on them are extremely hard to spot at night.




Synopsis: Reporter stated several new large electric wind generators have been built without obstacle clearance lighting southeast of F05 airport that pose a flight hazard.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At approximately 2;500 ft. we received an ACARS message that our HAZMAT paperwork was incorrect and needed to call Dispatch; followed by a second message stating to continue to destination. Then ATC contacted us and was told that the company wanted us to return to departure airport. I requested RV and a descent from 10;000 ft. to 3;000 ft. for the ILS. A third message was sent to us from dispatch which stated the nature of the problem. I knew at that moment that the paperwork that was issued to the crew did not annotate what the true amount of Dry Ice was aboard according to Dispatch message that we were over the maximum allowable by 57 lbs and that the Dispatcher talked to the Duty Officer and he was wanted us to continue to destination. We contacted ATC that we could proceed to destination; leveled off at 5;000 ft. and waited for ATC to issue a new clearance to destination; which then we proceeded uneventfully to our original destination.According to Dispatch; the DG paperwork did not annotate a position that contained Dry Ice and that we were over the DRY ICE SUPPLEMENTAL procedure by 57 lbs. Attention to detail. I cannot know that something is wrong if the paperwork supplied to the crew is incorrect. There are many layers of trust that everyone is doing there job attentively and correct when DG paperwork is supplied to me. Especially when there is non accessible DG. Some other form of scrutinization or cross check may be required to prevent this from happening again.




Synopsis: B757-200 Captain reported inflight ACARS message regarding Hazmat documentation errors; including exceeding max allowed limitation as well as load location error.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VGT.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class D VGT
ATC / advisory: Tower VGT
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Controller working Local 1 before me had issued the initial control instruction to an IFR small jet; inbound on a visual approach from the east. He issued a left base Runway 12R; maintain at or above 035 until turning final. The pilot read the restriction back. There was a single engine aircraft inbound from the northwest on a straight in for Runway 12L. Also issued by the Controller before me. I took the position; and in the briefing the Controller had stated the restriction to small jet. When I assumed the position I issued traffic to the jet on single engine and told him to reduce speed to follow additional traffic on a half mile final for his runway and cleared him to land. The pilot had read back the clearance to land and to reduce his speed. He started descending below the restriction before I cleared him to land. I went to the single engine and told him traffic will be passing off his right for the other runway. The single engine said that aircraft flew 150 feet below him. I thought the jet had said he had the single engine in sight but he didn't. I should have listened more carefully on what the jet pilot said and not what I wanted him to hear. The pilot descended below his restriction before the clearance was issued. That should have been complied with.




Synopsis: A VGT Controller issued mutual traffic to an IFR jet inbound and a single engine in the landing pattern but the jet missed his traffic by 150 feet after he descended for landing but did not have his traffic insight.
Date: 202007
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
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Captain asked me to secure the number two engine for a single engine taxi into the gate at ZZZ. I wrapped my fingers around the no 2 engine cut off lever and brought the lever to cutoff. I guess with my pinkie finger I accidentally also pulled the no 1 engine start lever out of the indent. I proceeded to secure the overhead panel after I did this I glanced back down at the start levers and first saw the no 1 engine start lever off the indent and in a panic I thought the Captain wanted me to shut off the no 1 engine and I thought I had started the procedure but didn't complete the task fully. So I started to bring the no 1 engine start lever to cutoff; realized the error of my ways and put it back up into the indent. The number one engine then shut down also. We then stopped the plane and started the number one engine back up and taxied to the gate without further incident.It is something I have never done before; I needed to be more careful with my finger placement on the levers. I needed to slowdown. I was coming off of a two month leave and was just trying to show the Captain I was not rusty with any of the procedures. Single engine taxi is a somewhat unusual procedure for me and I should have slowed down and thought about each task before I accomplished the task.




Synopsis: First Officer reported being instructed to secure the number two engine for a single engine taxi to the gate; but accidentally shut off both engines.