elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Towed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Under Tow
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] arrived at work and was assigned to move 2 aircraft. There an A330 in front of the hanger blocking the exit of the aircraft in the hanger that needed to be brought out. Moved first aircraft to taxiway Uniform and returned with tow bar; left tug and 2 mechanics at aircraft; since it was coming into hanger next. At aircraft in the hanger; Brake rider was in place and stairs were pulled; left tow bar at nose and went to retrieve other tug. Hooked up tug and another mechanic started walking toward left wing. Brake rider said; 'Brakes off' another mechanic jumped onto the tug and I started backing aircraft out of the hanger. The wings were never in the hanger. During backing; noticed [another aircraft] nosed toward Heavy Maintenance hangar and I shifted my focus on clearing the tail of the 321 and made slight adjustment to correct to aircraft right. Then seen mechanic waving arms and stopped. The aircraft wings were never inside the hanger so was thinking only needed one mechanic to watch the tail. Hardly ever is a 330 in the hanger and even rarer then that is it backed into hanger. So I knew it was a 330 just forgot and wings were clear easy push. Do more like heavy maintenance for their aircraft positioning into the hanger. Always have at least 5 people to move aircraft out of a hanger or it's a no-go.


Second narrative: I was told by manager to have aircraft moved; among other requests. Second of three Leads who was responsible for the 'Moves' had only 1 Supertug and needed 2 taxi qualified AMTs and a chock/safety AMT for moves requested by Tower (we began immediately reacting prior to and immediately after shift start). A 3rd Lead was coming in on OT; 'Late call' and hadn't arrived. I assigned the AMT's immediately available and 3 other of 5 other AMTs 'working on the 2 AC' 1 additional AMT jumped in and volunteered to help making it 7 actively involved AMTs and 1 assigned (unsure of his activity) and awaiting arrival of 2 more that arrived as [the aircraft] hit the building (total of 10 AMTs to move 2 AC...ONE AC AT A TIME). 'Why' is better left to those involved directly with the incident. I was not involved. Utilize TTWS (Tow Team Warning System) with a minimum of 3 (1 for each wing & 1 for the tail/engines) ground 'walkers'. Most importantly be conscious of and clear the tail on the A330 in the Line Hangar.


Synopsis: Maintenance personnel reported contacting the hanger during move of an A330.
Date: 201710
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We thoroughly briefed the taxi including the hot spots; expected route; and runway crossings. I elected to taxi with both engines running to minimize distractions. I had expected to taxi Alpha; Charlie; cross 4L; 4R; Delta; cross 33L to 27. We were cleared Echo; Bravo; Charlie; cross 4L hold short of 4R. I looked at my taxi chart [and] read it back to the First Officer but for some reason I thought that M was Bravo in my mind. We had trouble up linking the weights into the FMC and the First Officer was heads down setting up the box. I approached 4L at Echo turned on my lights announced; 'Clear left on this runway are you clear right?' The First Officer said yes looked to his right and put his head back down. He then [saw] I was crossing 4L at the wrong intersection said 'Stop! Stop!' and slammed on the brakes trying to keep us from a runway incursion. We stopped just after the hold short bar. ATC saw that we were stopped [and] told us we had missed Bravo but were lucky because it was a closed runway. The flight attendants said that two of them were banged up a little but did not want to return to the gate to seek medical attention and wanted to continue on the flight. One flight attendant said that a cart fell on her arm and hurt it and the other said she hurt her back when she slammed into the coffee pot in first class.


Second narrative: I thought we failed because I failed to see us miss the B taxiway sooner. Additionally; we failed because as soon as I said; 'stop'; the Captain should have done just that - it is easier to have a conversation when you're not moving.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported two flight attendants were injured by an abrupt stop to avoid a runway incursion.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X is a UAV that flies in our area frequently. The last couple days they have had issues with communication and rather than flying NORDO procedures they have been calling the FLM desk for clearance. In this case; Aircraft X wanted to transit to the A4 box. I asked the sector that Aircraft X was going to; but failed to advise the sector Aircraft X was leaving. Today I learned that Aircraft X was filing a report as they were going to be a Whiskey Alert had I not given the clearance.When Aircraft X goes NORDO the mission should be completed and procedures for them to land should occur. Also; I should know my airspace better to know where I was clearing Aircraft X from; not just to.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was cleared to delay in A3 FL500B590. Aircraft X was flying eastbound near the east boundary of A3. I advised Aircraft X that they only had clearance into A3. Aircraft X claimed to have clearance into A4 (adjacent ATCAA). The Controller of A4 did not give clearance into A4. I advised Aircraft X to maintain in A3. I advised the FLM of the spill out. The FLM told me that she had given Aircraft X the clearance into A4 via the phone. The FLM also stated that Aircraft X could not communicate with me via the frequency. I find this very hard to believe; given the altitude of Aircraft X; and the fact that no other aircraft had a frequency issue. If Aircraft X could not communicate with me; why didn't they squawk 7600?I recommend that in the event of a loss of communications that all [aircraft] squawk an appropriate code to allow the Controller to realize that there is a problem. Also; the FLM should not issue a clearance to any aircraft until receiving approval to do so from the Controller working the aircraft.

Second callback: Reporter stated on phone call that after filing his report he found out that the FLM had approved the operation; but did not coordinate with the two adjacent sectors about the flight.

Synopsis: Communication between FLM and CPC did was not complete causing confusion over if an UAV aircraft had permission to leave one warning area for another. Major problem with the aircraft was that it was a known NORDO on departure and while flying.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium 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 DAL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway 31L at Dallas; we cleared at Taxiway C4 and were told to contact Ground Control.  I briefed and was expecting to turn right on C5 and then join P to Gate.  Instead; Ground told us to taxi via P; B5; and B to the gate.  I was initially confused and had to find P on the 10-9 airport diagram.  I saw that it was essentially Taxiway C5 as it continued east.  I then followed P on the airport as it joined the ramp.  However; after I did this; Ground told me I missed the turn north onto B5 but to continue anyway toward the gate.  He also advised us that the area (north of the terminal) is uncontrolled and use caution to the gate.  In addition; he commented something along the lines that 'lots of planes do that and don't worry about it.'  We proceeded uneventfully to the gate.I missed the turn north onto B5 because 1) it was not what I was expecting; and 2) my initial confusion in not getting the logically sequential turn onto; first C5; and then P after clearing the runway at C4.  In addition; the DAL 10-9 page shows Taxiway P continuing onto the ramp.  I simply followed P too far as shown on the diagram.  I don't know what other solution would be best; but perhaps one should be discussed since we were obviously not the first ones to do this.


Second narrative: After exiting 31L at C4; Ground cleared us to taxi P; B5; and B and cross Runway 36 to the gate. The Captain and I began to discuss whether ground meant C5; P B5; and B to the gate. We believe that C5 should have been part of the taxi clearance. We agreed that was the only way to get to P; B5; and B; so we continued. Our discussion about Ground's questionable clearance distracted us; which led to us missing the left turn onto B5. Taxiway markings are also confusing. We proceeded onto P and remained on P through the non-movement area. Ground advised us we missed the turn onto B5. We apologized; and Ground cleared us to continue to taxi to the gate via P and B. Ground said not to worry about it.


Synopsis: Airline flight crew reports misunderstanding a taxi clearance to the ramp after landing on runway 31L at DAL.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: KZAK.ARTCC, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A KZAK
ATC / advisory: Center KZAK
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL370; smoke was observed emanating from the forward center console. Followed SOP related to phase 1 event and initiating diversion to ETOPS alternate; notified ATC via CPDLC obtaining clearance; briefed and coordinated with Cabin Crew; briefed passengers; coordinated diversion with dispatch via HF phone patch. Smoke ceased and was clear within 2 minutes following circuit breaker E-12 automatically opening. Normal precautionary landing executed.Of note related to operational challenges were:1) Faulty cockpit/cabin interphone system causing difficulty in communicating with cabin crew at all stations. Cabin crew could hear and understand statements from the cockpit crew but the cabin crew statements were broken (suspect faulty jacks at FA handsets).2) Failure of voice communications to make or receive calls to/from dispatch.3) Failure of ACARS printer related to receiving fully useable re-release and landing data. This information as presented on the MCDU is all but unusable.4) First flight attendant reported that initial PA made by captain was difficult to hear by passengers. She made a subsequent PA announcement generally repeating the information that had been provided. Suspect electrical short related to TCAS display unit located in forward center console.


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


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported smoke from an electrical short in the TCAS display led to an ETOPS diversion.
Date: 201912
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: Tower IWA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Returning from a solo cross-country; I was established on the published VFR arrival procedure for the flight schools; developed for Williams Gateway airport (IWA) at an altitude of 3;500 feet MSL in a small aircraft. (While I was in the gap I was not in IWA Class D airspace however I was communicating with Tower) I noticed a target moving my direction at approximately the same altitude on my ADS-B. I was unable to visually see the aircraft due to its location in a blind spot created between my windscreen and the door jamb. With the aircraft at two miles and still at my altitude; I initiated a climb to avoid a collision. The climb was only 100-200 feet; so there weren't any issues with PHX Class B airspace. I finally obtained visual ID of the aircraft as it passed below me. Another plane from my flight school; with an instructor on board; noted that the aircraft missed my plane by approximately 100 feet and didn't seem to realize that he'd nearly caused a midair collision. Lessons learned for me as a student pilot include; improved scan for aircraft; including maneuvering the plane on occasion to check blind spots. Better radio vigilance.




Synopsis: Small aircraft student pilot reported an NMAC in the vicinity of IWA airport.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NUQ.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower NUQ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I successfully convinced myself that at night; if there's any weather at all; I should be in on an instrument flight plan. I arrived at SQL having picked up an IFR clearance en route because the weather was reported as marginal; but on arrival into the Bay Area; things were almost totally clear south of OAK. I waited for a passenger for about 30-45 minutes before departing back to the east. I chose not to pick up an IFR clearance for the return flight because it had been clear on the way in and the weather reports weren't any different. We departed VFR and began a slow climb underneath the SFO Bravo shelves to get out past Sunol Grade when we began to contact the bases around 1;800-2;000 feet. I descended back to 1;500 feet and worked south towards RHV for a little while thinking I had just picked a bad spot. At some point near VPNUM it felt as if the clouds were descending and the terrain was rising; and having read a lot of reports of other people making this mistake; I made an immediate 180 and decided to return to Palo Alto to land and pick up an IFR clearance. I was listening to but not talking to Norcal; who had been really busy on my approach; and believe but have not confirmed they cannot issue new clearances that low over the bay due to MVAs? Also decided it was safer to be on the ground copying a clearance rather than trying to navigate at night with lowering layers; complex airspace; and low altitude. On the return to PAO I started off direct before almost blundering into NUQ's airspace although I believe I avoided it by maybe half a mile. In the end; landed safely at PAO; called Norcal for a clearance from the ground; and continued on our flight IFR and much more comfortably.Lessons worth learning: Marginal VFR at night is 100% IFR worthy; even if you have to deal with more complicated clearance delivery; NUQ's airspace where it intersects with PAO's continues to confuse me.




Synopsis: Cessna pilot reported flying in marginal VFR weather at night; and returning to departure airport to pick up IFR clearance.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Tiger (F11)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Sea
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While preparing for landing at ZZZ; a left upwind leg was made to Runway XX at 1;000 ft. AGL to insure that the runway was clear at this uncontrolled airport and to check wind direction indicators on the ground. People and equipment were observed near the left side of the runway. One person was actually on the edge of the runway. They appeared to be working. NOTAMS were checked before takeoff; there were no NOTAMS for ZZZ. The flight was continued on upwind; crosswind; downwind and final legs. The person on the edge of the runway did not seem to be preparing to clear the runway for my aircraft to land. At about 100 ft. AGL a go-around was initiated. The flight was continued on upwind; cross wind; downwind and final legs. Again; the person on the edge of the runway failed to clear the runway; in fact he stepped out on the runway while I was on my final approach. Another go around was made. I had been announcing all legs in the pattern on Unicom frequency. While on upwind; crosswind and downwind legs of the third pattern; I called in the blind to see if there was anyone on the ground near the airport who could go and get the people away from the runway so I could land. Someone answered and said that he would do it. Shortly after that; the person who had been on the edge of the runway and on the runway at one point; moved away from the runway. The aircraft was landed without further incident. I thanked the person who had helped by having the people move away from the runway. He acknowledged my thanks.




Synopsis: Pilot reported multiple go a rounds due to a person on and near the runway during approach to landing.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; 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
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Software and Automation; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X at 3;000 [feet]. ZME flashed Aircraft X at me in level flight at 3;000 [feet]. I turned on the MIA (minimum IFR altitude) chart because he seemed close to an area where the MIA is 3;500 [feet]; but the MSAW (minimum safe altitude warning) alarm was not going off. At the time he was approximately 23 [miles] from MDH and was within the 3;500 [foot] MIA area. I called ZME and asked if the aircraft was in fact level at 3;000 [feet] or if there were any unknown issues. She paused for a second and replied; Oh my god; your right". We then got off the line. At that point the MSAW went off. ZME called back later and stated her MSAW never went off. I explained to her mine hadn't either until right after we spoke. Investigate why the MSAW didn't go off prior to or even during entry into the area where the aircraft was below the MIA."




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported another Center Controller handed them off an aircraft flying below the Minimum IFR Altitude.