elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737-900
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Working Sector X; a B737-400 asked for higher due to a bad ride at FL330 after he heard another aircraft asked and was issued FL350. He was issued FL350 and became uncomfortably close to a B737-900 at FL340 during his climb. I noticed it just before the Conflict Alert began. I attempted to issue a turn but was told by the B737-900 that the traffic was 200 FT above him. I asked the B737-400 to expedite and report level. He notified me that he had 400 FT to go and I simultaneously measured 5.9 miles. The next RADAR update showed FL350 with 4.3 miles of separation. The biggest lesson learned is DO NOT let your scan deteriorate; especially with only one set of eyes and aircraft wanting different attitudes because of bad rides. I should have double checked to make sure the altitude was clean and at the very least told the B737-400 to expedite to the altitude he wanted because first glance there was no aircraft near him. Anything would have helped in this situation; from having a D-Side to looking at the URET for red 1's after entering the altitude. The thing that concerned me is that the Conflict Alert did not engage until after I recognized the conflict. It actually went off when the two aircraft where FL340 and FL342 head on.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a conflict event when dealing with bad ride requests. The reporter failed to observe the conflict developing.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The location of the event was approximately 40 miles west of the TAY VORTAC at FL 410. The First Officer was flying and the Captain was monitoring. We had been cruising at FL410 for approximately 20-30 minutes in light chop and aware of isolated storms enroute. The radar was being used in both manual and auto mode to attempt to 'paint' any potential weather enroute. Our optimum altitude in the FMC was FL410 and we had just entered what appeared to be wispy high clouds. While cruising at .79 mach in light chop (in the proverbial milk carton) the airspeed began to increase notably (much like mountain wave); and it became necessary for the First Officer to manually retard the thrust levers to approximately a 'stand up' position on the quadrant. Within a few seconds the 'increase shear' quickly became a 'decreasing shear' and the (yellow) footer quickly came into view followed very rapidly by the (red hashed) stick shaker. Full thrust (to the stops) was instantly applied; despite the autothrottles trying to reduce thrust. The aircraft; though in the stick shaker was NOT stalled as no uncommanded movements of the aircraft were encountered; no altitude loss was noted and the wings were always level and responding to input. The Captain asked ATC for lower (FL390) and simultaneously pressed level change to FL390 as ATC cleared us and asked if we needed any assistance. The aircraft pitch commands did not display a descent out of FL410; hence the First Officer disengaged the autopilot and began the descent (the autothrottles) continued to resist increasing thrust by the First Officer as the aircraft continued to experience periodic stick shaker indications. The Captain disengaged the autothrottles and increased thrust. Shortly after we began our descent to FL390 the aircraft airspeed began to return towards normal. No exceedances were noted; however; to be certain; upon landing the Captain called for Maintenance to check for engine exceedance...none was discovered on the instruments or in the FMC by the Technician.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reports encountering up and downdrafts at FL410 requiring full thrust to maintain flying speed; followed by a descent to FL390.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A Dash 8 was en route; abeam an en route airport they requested a change of destination. I cleared the Dash 8 to the en route airport via direct and a decent to 8;000. I asked the pilot for the reason of the change of destination; he stated that they had preformed a precautionary shutdown on one engine. I asked if any assistance was needed; the pilot stated they needed to contact their company for that information. I notified the Supervisor of the change of destination and reason; input the data into the Flight Data Processor (FDP); notified Approach that the Dash 8 diverted; and pass the aircraft information to the divert airport. The pilot of the Dash 8 again asked for direct to the airport and I cleared the aircraft again to the airport. I asked the pilot if he had the current ATIS; he stated that he did; I checked for any applicable NOTAMs. I stated the current ceiling to the pilot and asked if they wanted to start an approach. They stated that they did not have the airport in sight and would like to fly the LOC/DME Runway XX Approach via the VOR transition. I cleared the Dash 8 direct to the VOR and for the approach. I forgot to issue an altitude to maintain; after the pilot read back the clearance I was going to issue 5;000 at the VOR; but the pilot said he had the airport in sight for the visual. I cleared the Dash 8 for a visual approach and again asked if any assistance was needed; the pilot again stated that they needed to talk to their company. I told the Dash 8 to contact the airport. The pilot did not seem distressed or under adverse condition; nor was any assistance required. I did not feel the need to declare an emergency. They [the pilots] should know if they require assistance; and should not need to call company.




Synopsis: En route Controller described a precautionary engine shut down event; where the flight crew elected to divert but not to declare an emergency.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb; Descent; Cruise
Airspace: Class E SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Multiple gliders maneuvering in the vicinity of 5C1; which happens to be on approximately a 15 mile for SAT. The gliders do not call for service and have intermittent transponders that occasionally not show altitudes. Multiple arrivals required stop descents and vectors around glider activity. Recommend Class B or at the very least a class C extension to protect arrivals from glider activity.




Synopsis: SAT TRACON Controller reported gliders in vicinity of 5C1 airport routinely conflict with SAT airport final approach course traffic.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Cockpit Furnishing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the 737-900; the 737 [iPad mount] on Captain side of aircraft interferes with use of the nose wheel steering during taxi and interferes with aircraft controls during flight. When properly installed; the 737 [iPad mount] creates a severe safety hazard during taxi and when manually flying the aircraft in flight. The 737 [iPad mount] as installed on the 737-900ER is too long and physically blocks my arm from reaching and turning the nose wheel steering tiller during taxi. I had to remove the [iPad mount] in order to safely taxi the airplane. In addition; the 737 [iPad mount] when installed also blocks my left arm when trying to operate the yoke while manually flying. It completely blocks me from moving the yoke to the right - being able to freely move the yoke to the right is required for me to safely fly the airplane. The [iPad mount] restricts me from inputting any aileron to counter any crosswinds; wind shear; or wake turbulence when hand flying. It is impossible to safely fly the airplane manually when using the [iPad mount] as required by [Company] bulletin. I had to remove the [iPad mount] to manually fly the airplane and land safely. Was a risk assessment and Human Factors assessment completed before certifying the [iPad mount] and installing it on the 737's? Who ensured the 737 [iPad mount] did not interfere with all 737 pilot's use of flight controls? How was the Safety Management System process used to introduce a new piece of equipment on the flight deck that completely restricts me from safely taxiing and flying the airplane? I am broad shoulder with long arms; and the ergonomics of the seat and the limb room in the flight deck does not provide me much free space or room to maneuver. There are many pilots larger and taller than me. The [iPad mount] as currently designed and installed is unsafe and should be removed until a suitable replacement and the proper testing is done to ensure it does not restrict the pilot's use of the flight controls to safely taxi and fly the airplane.




Synopsis: B737-900 Captain stated the side iPad mount in the cockpit was unsafe and interfered with his ability to fly the plane.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B S46
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Descending on CHINS 2 arrival; set up and briefed arrival and approach for 32L. Controller changed runway to 14R. Descend via CHINS 2. Misread note 'turbojets landing Boeing Field runway 31. Set up for RADDY 250/11000. Controller said we should have leveled off at 16000 feet. Maintain 12000.  We read and briefed our notes. Still thought 250/11000 was clearance for Boeing Field. STAR is confusing. Still even has wrong runway numbers. BFI should have its own arrival. Don't jam it all together with SEA. At least make the notes separating the 2 airports.


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


Synopsis: A Captain of a widebody turbojet in part 121 operations reported ambiguity in charting while approaching BFI.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout we got an ENG 1 Compressor Vane ECAM. We followed all ECAM steps and referred to the QRH. All engine parameters were normal or within limits. Engine 1 FF; EGT; and N2 were a little higher than Engine 2 but well within limits. At top of descent; the First Officer retarded the throttles and the number 1 engine stalled; the EGT went up to approximately 835 degrees; and we got an ENG 1 Fail ECAM. Followed all ECAM steps; referred to the QRH and shutdown Engine 1. Declared an emergency with ATC; Dispatch; and briefed the flight attendants. We prepped the cabin for an emergency landing but did not issue a 'Brace' signal. First Officer had just completed his PC so I had him continue flying and accomplish the landing. Landed uneventfully; had the fire department inspect the engine; then taxied to the gate.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 had no additional information]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported ENG #1 compressor vane ECAM after takeoff; with no other issues they continued to destination. At top of descent the #1 engine rolled back and showed a high EGT; so the engine was shut down and non-eventful single engine landing ensued.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HII.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E HII
ATC / advisory: CTAF HII
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was intending to land at HII and was approaching the airport from the east. I began making radio calls over CTAF when I was 12 miles from the airport and continued making radio calls detailing my position; altitude; and intent every two miles thereafter. I began to hear one other pilot making calls (three calls prior to the near miss) but his transmissions were very difficult to understand due to background noise. When I was four miles from the airport I asked the other pilot to repeat his last transmission but received no reply. I made another radio call two miles from the airport and stated I would be crossing the airport midfield; performing a left hand circle to enter the downwind at a 45. Seconds after that call I shifted forward in my seat and immediately saw a moving object that had previously been hidden by my window frame. After a few seconds of trying to discern what it was; I determined it was a banner under tow; and soon saw the aircraft towing it. The other aircraft was at my same altitude and crossing over the airport immediately above Runway 32 (runway in use was 14) at pattern altitude (1;800 MSL). I immediately began a descent and made a radio call to the other pilot. The other pilot indicated he now had me in sight and would be 'flying around 14 to drop his banner.' I descended to 1;200 MSL and flew directly below the other aircraft and its banner. I landed a few minutes later without incident. Another pilot on the ground who witnessed the near miss and heard the radio calls approached me as I tied down my aircraft. He indicated that; in his experience; the banner tow pilots do not take much care in avoiding other aircraft and would often try to 'muscle other people around in the airspace.' He also noted the banner tow pilots often flew with their doors open; which would account for the difficulty in understanding their transmissions.




Synopsis: Despite having provided regular CTAF position reports as she approached the airport of intended landing; the student pilot flying a PA-28 suffered an NMAC with a tow plane and the banner it was towing.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We exceeded the 280kt airspeed restriction on the HHOOD3 arrival. We were held up high because of conflicting traffic on the initial descent profile. Our flight was also running late because of earlier flow restrictions. I believe that using the [tablet] caused much of this airspeed exceedance because when you expand the approach chart to aid in the viewing during glare situations it eliminates the tiny airspeed restriction note on the arrival chart. I do believe this would not have happened using paper because the entire chart is always in full view.




Synopsis: On the HHOOD3 arrival into PDX a crew exceeded the 280 knot airspeed restriction.
Date: 201812
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Passenger passed out after standing to get something out of overhead bin. The passenger sitting across the aisle jumped in immediately and asked for our Stethoscope/blood pressure kit. Unfortunately neither worked and he had to use the blood pressure cuff the passenger had with him. This isn't the first medical emergency I've had that the Doctor has had this problem with our equipment. He also inquired why we don't have a cheap pulse-oximeter on board to check to see if the passenger is getting the correct amount of oxygen.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported the first aid equipment was defective when needed for an ill passenger.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Go Around
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
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: Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to CLT; approach control told me I could continue the approach but probably would not get in as there was a 50 kt wind shift at 200 ft. On final well before my minimums (restricted Captain) I elected to go around; I was flying and the missed approach vectors put me back into more turbulent weather; I was basically hanging on to the aircraft; go around initially was slowly accomplished; with the wind shear I think I came close to a flap over speed; but not completely sure; I had just enough fuel to divert to ZZZ; after landing in ZZZ I felt 'rattled' and still in the yellow; I elected to overnight there. The rub comes in when I told [Dispatch] that it was not safe for me as a restricted captain with less than 30 hours on the equipment to fly back into the aforementioned weather in CLT. [Dispatch] said they would give me a missed trip; I then said I was fatigued to stop the show. Nothing shows anything about being fatigued on my [record]; only shows that I was reassigned. I thought in the best interest of safety I should stop at ZZZ for the evening; not sure why [Dispatch] could not understand this; they certainly need to. Resumed rest of trip the next day and got the folks into Charlotte; then dead headed home. Weather is why it occurred and my own lack of time on the 737. The conditions were very challenging for any crew especially for a restricted Captain and fairly new First Officer. We did the best we could do and as a not new Captain I do know when to say no! Don't try to push a crew into a situation that in the Captain's judgment is not safe.




Synopsis: B738 Captain reported experiencing turbulence during an instrument approach.