elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E STL
ATC / advisory: TRACON T75
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending through approximately 12;000 MSL and approaching PTEES on the BOOSH RNAV STAR to STL; Approach told us to expect Runway 12L versus 12R for landing. The pilot flying changed the FMC without verbalizing anything which resulted in a VNAV disconnect and route discontinuity. As pilot not flying; I immediately verbalized setting 10;000 in the MCP Altitude window and stated the PTEES restriction and mileage to go. The pilot flying acknowledged; using MCP level control; finished his inputs; and linked up the proper sequence in the FMC and then the pilot flying re-engaged LNAV and VNAV. The pilot flying verbalized resetting the MCP to the descend via altitude that we had been cleared to and the rest of the arrival was without incident.Our [flight crews] do not adequately know how the FMC controls the aircraft through LNAV and VNAV. Our depth of knowledge is dangerously thin; especially as more and more RNAV procedures are introduced. My reflex action to always put the next altitude restriction in the altitude alert is borne from constant misapplication of inputs into the FMC whenever ATC changes anything--and not knowing what the effect will be. The verbalize; verify; and monitor technique quickly goes out the window when ATC revises [a terminal RNAV procedure]. And they do. The FMC profile is awkward in accommodating dynamic change and our collective minimal training and experience is inadequate to the rigors of everyday life on the line. Speed changes; runway changes and; in the case of DEN; 150 NM of constant changes leave the probability of error high. I can't be the only pilot seeing this problem on the line.




Synopsis: A B737-300 Captain lamented the training deficiencies at his airline that he believes ill prepares flight crews to effectively conduct complex terminal area RNAV procedures.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flying FL360 from ZZZ to ZZZ1 about 20 miles east of JCT VOR severe turbulence encountered with 800 foot gain in altitude. The auto pilot kicked off and the Captain took the controls; was a loss of control about 10 seconds and the total time of the event was about 30 seconds. We reported the event to ATC. Nobody suffered injuries (passengers and FA's). Prior to the event we were flying in total smooth air and no radar reports about bad weather and no ATC reports about bad weather.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported turbulence with an 800 foot gain of altitude.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Learjet 31
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution Ducting; Clamps; Connectors
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was flying as First Officer on a Learjet 31. We departed for a 1.5 hour flight. This was to be the airplane's first flight following a twelve year inspection. The airplane was test flown by a factory Learjet test pilot previously and declared airworthy; and returned to the maintenance facility. As we climbed through FL360 on our way to FL430; we experienced an abrupt loss of cabin pressure. It sounded as though the Aft Pressure Bulkhead gave way and the cabin VSI immediately pegged at over 6;000 FPM cabin altitude. I informed ATC of the situation and told them we needed an immediate descend. We then donned 02 masks and initiated emergency descend procedures in accordance to the Learjet Aircraft Flight Manual. My priority at that time was to get the airplane as quickly and safely as possible to a safe altitude. As we passed through about 25;000 FT I noticed the emergency pressurization system seemed to have stabilized the cabin climb and I switched back to my regular headset as I was having trouble with my microphone in the O2 mask. I contacted ATC and was given instructions to continue my descent to 12;000 FT. I was asked if I needed to declare an emergency; and I told the Controller the situation seemed to be under control at that point and requested to return to the departure airport. We landed with no further incident and left the airplane at the overhaul facility for repairs.

Callback: The Reporter stated that a pressurization duct glue had not completely cured after the extensive overhaul which allowed a duct connection to fail. The aircraft was returned to the overhaul facility where all ducts were inspected and re-glued as necessary.



Synopsis: A Learjet 31 pressurization duct connection failed while climbing through FL360 because the glue connecting a pressurization duct had not completely cured following an extensive maintenance overhaul.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C TUS
ATC / advisory: Tower TUS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground; Supervisor / CIC
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was working Ground Control and also had the Controller In Charge position. The Local Controller cleared an aircraft for takeoff while a vehicle was still on the runway. The vehicle heard the local controller and exited the runway. I did not see or hear about this event until I was in the break room and then the local controller told me about it. There have been many problems at TUS tower associated with vehicles and runway closures. We just had an evaluation team leave this facility a month ago and they said that we have the most vehicles that they have ever seen at an airport. There have been multiple reports filed because of the amount of vehicles on the movement areas and the length or runway inspections and sweeping. In a normal morning there are vehicles on all or some of the runways for hours. To fix this problem from happening again we need to fix the amount of vehicles on the movement areas and the length of time it takes to do a runway inspection.




Synopsis: A TUS Ground Controller also assigned Controller in Charge duties was advised by the Local Controller that he had cleared an aircraft for takeoff with a vehicle on the runway.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: 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 MSY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After push back and release from tug; we were unable to move the aircraft with 1 engine. We called to have the ramp personnel come back out and check things out. Ops responded that they would call ramp. No one came out to aircraft. At this point; other aircraft were calling for push. We were blocking all operations. I called ground and confirmed the area behind was clear; started engine 2 and used both engines to get moving. During push back we felt the aircraft roll into a hole and then back out. During initial taxi; still using 1 engine; we rolled into this hole and became stuck.The Company might want to investigate the further. I checked my release and NOTAMs and didn't see any reference to this.

Callback: The reporter stated that his aircraft was pushed back and stopped on the taxiway common to both Concourses 'C' and 'D'; approximately abeam Gate D3. The reporter's main concern was his aircraft engine's exhaust blast at high power might cause injury or damage.



Synopsis: A large air carrier transport jet attempted to taxi on a single engine after pushback and engine start at MSY; but was unable to move because the aircraft's wheels were in a ramp depression.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working R14 without a D-Side with relatively light traffic. I had 2 data blocks pushed up to me from sector 10 as balloon1 and balloon2. I had no paperwork from the Supervisor at the sector. The sector called me to ask if I knew about the balloon launch. I responded in the negative. I then asked the Supervisor if he knew anything about a balloon launch. At about that time I started getting a little push of aircraft from the South and the Supervisor told me that W283/285 were being activated. The Supervisor then brought over a piece of paper vaguely describing the balloon launch. I started getting reports of altitude and relative location of the balloons from the Supervisor. All the while; I was talking to aircraft already in the sector. I was unclear as to the location of the balloons and my responsibilities for reporting to aircraft. I informed the aircraft as best I could; but I'm sure I sounded unclear to some of the pilots. I eventually received help in the form of a D-Side. Eventually; I took RADAR on several F18s headed to the warning areas. The F18s were aware of the balloons from the previous sector. Two of the different flights asked for headings to miss the balloons; one asking for a hard turn right at our sector boundary. Subsequent reports about the balloon location and altitude were erroneous and outdated. There were several reports of balloon sightings from different aircraft that were nowhere near the reported positions. There were numerous pilots very concerned w/8/9*-ith the position of the balloons and I felt helpless to provide them with an accurate report. This in my opinion is an extremely dangerous situation and did and can lead to congested frequencies not to mention potential harm to the aircraft in the sector and its occupants. From what I understand these balloons are very large. Recommendation; Do not allow these balloons to be launched during busy times and/or in areas of major traffic flows. Make sure the supervisor gives information on these type of activities ahead of time. If these launches are going to continue; please require them to have transponders so that we can give the pilots accurate information.




Synopsis: ZOA Enroute Controller voiced concern regarding the lack of coordination and information provided regarding a balloon launch.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working a heavy amount of traffic; but the complexity was low. I handed Air Carrier X off to Sector 76 level at FL340; Air Carrier X had no issues. As Air Carrier X was entering Sector 76 I took a handoff on Air Carrier Y level at FL350. Air Carrier Y had no request and I left him on his route. At the point that Air Carrier X was 10 miles into Sector 76 and Air Carrier Y was around 20 to 15 miles still within Sector 76 I noticed the conflict alert activate. Air Carrier X showed climbing through FL343 while I was talking to Air Carrier Y at FL350 only 7 miles apart head to head. Air Carrier Y immediately reported that he may have to respond to a TCAS from the aircraft climbing in front of him. I responded 'Air Carrier Y Roger; turn 20 degrees left vectors for traffic.' I prevented the targets from merging; it was to late prevent the loss of separation. Air Carrier Y never responded to an RA and remained level at FL350. I was told that the aircraft came within 3.5 miles and 400 FT. I think this was a simple case of missed traffic. I do not have any procedural recommendations to prevent this situation.


Second narrative: We were Air Carrier X in cruise at FL340 south of CVG. The Captain was pilot flying and I was the pilot not flying. The Controller issued a clearance to turn left 15 degrees. We assumed this was for traffic; so the Captain asked me to ask the Controller if we could climb to a different altitude. So; on my reply to the Controller I requested a different altitude for which she issued a clearance to climb to FL360. Shortly after the Captain initiated the climb we received a TCAS TA (traffic; traffic). At that time I decreased the range on my ND to more easily see where the traffic was. The traffic was above and to our right; and soon it became apparent that a conflict was imminent. The Captain asked me to query the Controller. When I began to do so; we received a TCAS RA (descend; descend) so I reported a TCAS descent to the Controller. She then issued a 30 degree left turn. The traffic passed approximately 400 FT above and to our right. I don't know the lateral distance as I was busy setting the new heading and verifying our vertical speed remained outside the avoid area. After the traffic passed we were cleared back on course.


Synopsis: Two controllers and a flight crew involved describe a TCAS RA event at FL345 in ZID airspace.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Door closed; Captain announced 'ramp loading bags while surrounded with thunder storms.' Captain calls 1L to suggest to have the cockpit door open; and show me the iPad map. Captain gets out of his seat to use the first class bathroom with no face mask. As he is inside restroom; a coach passenger waits by door 1R to use the first class bathroom. Captain comes out and faces the passenger. When Captain shuts the cockpit door; I recall the passenger comment; 'No mask.' In flight; when Captain open the cockpit door I said 'mask; mask; mask.'Captain uses the lavatory 1R the second time with no mask on his face.  Flight Attendant assists me with cockpit break. Captain third bathroom break; same flight attendant assisted me; Captain did not have his face mask on. When we landed in ZZZ; Captain opened the door without mask on with his suitcase and bags. I said; 'Captain no face mask?' Captain said 'Oh I forget.' He reached into his pocket and pulled out the blue surgical mask and held it in his hand and took off with his bags with no mask on his face. I recall Captain exited onto the jet way where outbound crew were on the jet way. The First Officer; whenever he exited the cockpit or when I stepped into the cockpit; always had his face mask on.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the Captain did not have a face mask on while exiting the cockpit numerous times.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; 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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I forgot to coordinate ODO (Opposite Direction Operation) with ZZZ Tower. Their active runway in use was Runway XX and I ran Aircraft X in for a practice RNAV YY approach without ODO coordination. I had cleared the aircraft for the approach and then the satellite sectors were split and forgot to tell the other Controller about the ODO operation. ZZZ Tower right now is on reduced operating times due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Their Tower operation opening and closing times are out of the norm and may have been a contributing factor in forgetting that they were open and coordination was needed for the ODO operation.ZZZ1 Tower was on a XY's operation while ZZZ Tower was on a Runway XX operation which added to the confusion of what runway was in use at ZZZ.I just need to do a better job of remembering everything.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported failing to coordinate an Opposite Direction Operation with Tower.
Date: 202010
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out of ZZZ en route to ZZZ1. We received an ACARS message from Dispatch. 'Ops Agent did not let us know until now. There is HAZMAT onboard in Bin A and it is 1 AED Lithium Battery 7 LBS'. We did not have HAZMAT paperwork on board for the battery. We acknowledged the message and asked Dispatch if they informed ZZZ1. They said they were informing them at this time. We continued to ZZZ1; with no further issues.


Second narrative: OPS called after flight was airborne to let me know HAZMAT was on board in Bin A. One AED lithium battery weighing 7lbs. They stated there was a breakdown in communication. I then let the crew know of the HAZMAT details and also let ZZZ1 OPS know for the arrival. Remark on the load sheet for the Captain notifying them of the HAZMAT is not there because I did not know of the HAZMAT prior to departure. [Suggest] better communication between Ground OPS/Flight OPS.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported in flight notification from Dispatch regarding undocumented Hazmat onboard.