elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A pre-coordinated flight of foreign Air Force aircraft were supposed to transition our airspace. All precoordination went out the window when the lead aircraft; Aircraft X; and his trailing flight would not fly the flight plan route due to weather. Their 'preferred' route of flight took them under an active arrival descent corridor and under an active holding pattern. Aircraft X would not turn and therefore could not climb.Aircraft X advised me that they had lost contact with an aircraft; Aircraft Y; in the flight and requested a transponder code and help in reestablishing contact with the flight. I issued a beacon code but did not receive acknowledgement for several transmissions. When radio contact was finally established with the Aircraft Y I attempted to assist in rejoining the flight. Due to language problems and the fact that I had no transponder codes for the other aircraft in the flight; I had no way to ascertain a safe altitude to climb Aircraft Y to rejoin. This was all compounded by Aircraft Y refusing control instructions and not having clear communication. Coordination with surrounding ATC facilities was accomplished. The flight was eventually worked by another sector which was not the sector that was supposed to receive this flight of aircraft.This flight of aircraft were not given to TRACON in anything close to the precoordinated conditions and should never have been allowed to begin this flight plan if they if the weather would affect the establishment of a normal flight of aircraft. TRACON is in a very tight airspace restricted area with little room to maneuver aircraft to accommodate deviations in such a large way from precoordinated flight plans.




Synopsis: A flight of foreign military aircraft would not fly their pre-coordinated route due to weather. One of the aircraft in the flight got lost and ATC assisted it in rejoining the flight.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria 7ECA
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [I was] landing on right base leg for Runway 31. Engine stopped; forced landing. Minor damage; bent prop. Reason [could possibly be] water or icing?




Synopsis: A Champ 7ECA pilot landed after his engine quit while in the landing pattern and the aircraft had minor propeller damage. Water or icing suspected.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Learjet 60
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just put C172 in position on Runway 31. There was a lot of discussion in the Tower related to some new RNAV procedures we are currently implementing. I wasn't involved in the discussion but from the midst of the discussion; Ground asked to cross Runway 31. I think the Coordinator also asked about the crossing at the same time because I had multiple voices addressing me at the same time. I was focusing on an aircraft I had just cleared for takeoff on with the intent of clearing C172 in position on Runway 31 to turn behind him. I had a couple other aircraft queuing up for 31. I authorized the runway crossing; but promptly forgot. I had C172 in my peripheral vision as I was trying to gauge an appropriate time to launch behind the regional jet off of 2R. I cleared C172 for takeoff to a 090 heading. The pilot immediately said; 'I've got a Lear in front of me.' I canceled his take off clearance. He never began takeoff roll. When the Lear was clear; I cleared the aircraft for takeoff without incident. I would recommend to myself to use some sort of visual aid or memory jogger for all runway crossings regardless of traffic. We do not have a mandatory aid or policy on using aids at our facility. We do have some runway closed strips that I have used in the past and will now use in the future. Also in my hurry I neglected to use an appropriate runway scan.




Synopsis: Local Controller approved a vehicle runway crossing of the active and then cleared an aircraft for takeoff forgetting about the vehicle crossing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VNY.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: An aircraft attempted a wrong surface landing. I was working the helicopter position and was just checking to see a landed Helicopter had cleared the taxiway onto the ramp. The Ground Controller with a raised voice shouts out something about short final for the wrong runway and to send an aircraft around. He had to say it at least twice. I glanced back and forth from the Local controller to the arrival ends of the runways. I saw the seated Local Controller; who was staring straight at the radar in front of her; look up and out the window finally sending Aircraft X around. Aircraft X was less than a mile final and less than 100 ft. to the closed runway.The Ground Controller did an excellent job of noticing a small dark aircraft that was blending into the background and speaking up. The Local Controller was in my opinion behind in the operation and not making the most efficient use of her resources. Such as looking out the window and relying practically on the radar display. Too many VFR Tower Controllers rely too much on a radar display and attempt to work traffic like a TRACON. The FAA 7110.65 needs to be divided up into at least 3 supplements. Enroute; TRACON; and B C D Towers. The first thing stated for the towers should be to 'look out the windows.'




Synopsis: VNY Tower Controller reported that a Local Controller failed to notice that an aircraft was about to land on the wrong runway.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On downwind abeam KSAN at 5000'; given a base turn to final just outside of SAYAE; extended off of SAYAE and was in the turn to intercept final; cleared to 3800 until established on final. Armed app; descended to the crossing alt 3200 for SAYAE; told by ATC that we had an altitude deviation at 3400; due to the MVA altitude for that airspace. I extended off of SAYAE; maybe if I had extended off of OKAIN of VYDDA my SA would have been better as to where 3800 would have put me in relation to final; but the controller turned me in to intercept and as far as I could see; SAYAE was the logical point to extend from. Had we not started our descent when we did; very likely we would have crossed SAYAE at 3800; 600' higher than the charted altitude and would have been very difficult to have been stable at 1000 on an already aggressive approach; (3.5 degree final.)On downwind I should have asked what approach we were being set up for; I should have just said I wanted vectors to LYNDI for the full RNAV approach to 27. I wasn't given a 'cleared for the app' ; just a turn to and maintain 3800 till established; which had us way high for that part of the approach; there's very little distance between OKAIN and SAYAE (1.9) and VYDDA and OKAIN (2.0). When given vectors close in to final; and you're high; descending; very challenging to see exactly which point to extend off; so I took the point that appears to me that's in front of us. Even if it was just a visual. [Also] I don't recall being cleared for a visual; so I can't honestly tell what we were cleared for; we should have waited to engage the APP button till established on final; at least in this scenario.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported momentary loss of situational awareness resulting in excursion from assigned altitude when assigned base turn to final until established on final.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise both pilots noticed an odor in the cockpit followed by a report from a flight attendant that the odor was also present in the cabin. The cockpit crew went on oxygen. The odor remained and the cockpit crew preformed the fumes removal procedure in the QRH. We notified Dispatch via ACARS. The odor dissipated in the cockpit and somewhat dissipated in the cabin but after 20 minutes the Flight Attendant complained the odor was still noticeable and some passengers were complaining of headaches. We attempted to notify Dispatch with a phone patch but were unable to contact any operations facility. We were unable to use the phone to Dispatch device in the cockpit because it was rendered unusable due to the fumes removal procedure (galley power off). Additionally; we were unable to contact via the commercial radio network. We decided to divert to a nearby airport and ATC cleared us direct; speed at our discretion. We were eventually able to contact Company Operations at the diversion airport; described the situation and requested them to inform Dispatch. Since some passengers were complaining of headaches we requested medical personnel meet the aircraft on arrival. We landed about 20 minutes later without incident. The aircraft was slightly overweight on landing at 171;800 LBS. This was noted in the logbook.


Second narrative: The odor remained and the cockpit crew preformed the fumes removal procedure in the QRH and went on oxygen.


Synopsis: An A321 diverted to a nearby airport when possibly caustic fumes were detected in the cabin and flight deck. A complicating factor was inability to communicate reliably with their company for assistance and planning.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Corporate
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other ALL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other after flights
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Our operation was just notified on Date that our aircraft registration expired. I operated two training flights as PIC. The first was [date] and the second was [date]. I am guilty of just looking to ensure that the document was on the airplane; while completely disregarding my duty to ensure that it was valid. A contributing factor to this is that the aircraft registration is addressed to our company headquarters; which is a different address than our operations base hangar. Due to COVID related staffing at our headquarters; our FAA reminder postcards were never delivered to our hangar. Again; it is my responsibility as PIC to ensure that the correct paperwork is on the aircraft prior to each flight.We have instituted the following changes to ensure that this does not happen again: 1) Added the registration expiration to our maintenance tracking software; Flight Docs. This will flag our maintenance team when expiration is close to occurrence. This will also be printed on the preflight form that all pilots utilize. 2) Training will occur and language will be added to our manual and/or expanded normal procedures document emphasizing the action to ensure that a valid registration is onboard the aircraft. 3) A consultancy company has been hired to automatically renew our registration and deliver it directly to our hangar.




Synopsis: Pilot reported flying twice with an out of date registration.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was on an OPD routing. ZDC Controller called and informed me that due to weather deviations; this aircraft was cleared to FL220 and not issued the descend via part of their clearance. The pilot contacted my sector and stated that they had the descend via clearance which put them in conflict with another aircraft. The OPD procedures at this position have been wrought with many unclear situations. The pilots aren't sure of what to do when they have been issued a clearance (notably speed or altitude assignments) that differs from the published procedure. Controllers may not be sure of what clearances to issue in these cases and the correct way to issue these clearances. The problems are probably worse than they should be because of two facilities issuing clearances and using varying phraseology. To solve part of these problems; clearance phraseology should be in the same.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller voiced concern regarding the varied phraseology used within ATC when clearing 'descend via' clearances.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [Company] Leadership for years under hydration program created several locations housing ice makers; ice merchandisers; filtered water dispensers and water cooler sanitizing station.Yesterday [the gate] crew was seriously upset as aircraft maintenance team was working on [an aircraft] to clear clogged sewer line in aft; once maintenance team was done they walked to the sanitizing station at [an adjacent gate] meant for washing only drinking water coolers to wash their used tools. Even before [the] team could actually approach and prevent the act the maintenance team had already started the unbelievable act.Maintenance washed their dirty sewer tools and left. The act was reported to Supervisor on duty who reported to [operations] and Manager on duty about the act; who suggested to create a work order and have [facility maintenance] clean the sink which is not an acceptable solution to restore employee confidence and support [the company safety campaign.]  OSHA has set firm rules for these kind of bio hazard cleaning / removal / similar process and this act committed by maintenance team is clear violation and disregard to fellow employees well being.


Second narrative: [At the gate] water cooler sanitization station. Aircraft Maintenance group worked on [an aircraft] and according to the gate crew worked on sewer lines of lavatory on [the aircraft]. After completing their work they walked to the water station and washed the tools on drinking water cooler sanitization station. The incident was reported immediately to the Supervisor. It is very gross bio-hazard and unacceptable by any hygiene standard.


Synopsis: Air Carrier ground personnel reported maintenance personnel wash soiled tools in ramp sanitized hydration station after working on an aircraft lavatory.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While returning from the practice area with my student; we began taxiing into the ramp and noticed the fuel truck was fueling another company Cessna 172. Unable to continue to parking due to the fuel truck being on duty; we began taxiing behind the first Cessna 172 parking line. We were already aware there were not any parking spots left on the first Cessna ramp; but continued towards the end of the line; pulled in; shutoff the engine and set the parking brake. I was dropping off my student who was getting prepared for his solo. As I begin to exit the aircraft and grab my belongings; another company Cessna 172 was attempting to pass behind us when it accidently struck us on the rudder portion with its right wing. Upon impact both flight instructors disembarked the aircraft and notified the appropriate personnel of the incident. In order to prevent such incidents in the future flight crews should just wait. If 'can I make it through there' comes to your mind; it's probably is a bad idea. Waiting and not taking unnecessary risks is the best option.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reports shutting down short of his parking place due to a fuel truck in the way. Another company C172 attempting to taxi past strikes the rudder with a wingtip.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Magneto/Distributor
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Removed both the left and right magnetos for replacement due to component time. Both magnetos were functioning fine and passed the run-up RPM drop test. Rivet and cam assembly on one magneto was missing a rivet head; which had sheared off and dropped down inside the engine accessory case. This impulse coupling was covered by recurring Airworthiness Directive and Service Bulletin inspections. It had been inspected several times in the past and was in compliance with all inspection criteria. The other magneto had the newer snap ring style impulse coupling. The broken rivet head was found in the scavenge oil sump and there was no damage to the engine accessory drive section. Recommend immediate replacement of all riveted impulse couplings be made mandatory by AD. They can fail without warning; even when they pass the required 100 hour inspection.




Synopsis: The reporter indicated that even with the 100 flight hour periodic inspections; the rivet had failed since the last check.