elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAV.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SAV
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAV
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was working approach and the Tower launched an aircraft and scanned down an Aircraft X flight strip. I received the strip and looked over it and saw the call sign; type; and first fix. I continued to work other aircraft in my airspace and eventually Aircraft Y called on Departure. I radar identified him and issued 10;000 feet and cleared direct. At this point I was only observing the call sign on my radar display. The Tower scanned the wrong strip but the aircraft were on similar departure routes. It was not known to me that it was the wrong aircraft for the strip until approximately 30 minutes later when there was an issue with an aircraft being released ten minutes early. Aside from the initial scan of the strip after print out; the only difference in the two flight plans that affect us directly was one number in the call sign. As controllers we can maybe do better double checking call signs on flight strips. This was a unique situation that began in the Tower. Local Control missed it but the pilot also did not bother to correct the controller on the call sign mix up.




Synopsis: Savannah TRACON Controller reported the Tower departed an aircraft with the wrong flight plan and beacon code due to similar call signs.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were delayed out of ZZZ1 due to ZZZ Center being closed for a COVID. Dispatch sent us a new release with a route that took us well west of ZZZ Center's airspace. After takeoff and soon after leveling off at cruise Altitude; ZZZ1 Center asked if we wanted to stay on route or get a short cut. Our original route was [route 1]. They offered [route 2]. The Captain and I discussed the new route and accepted it. The Captain sent a message to dispatch informing him of our new route.Our discussion and thoughts were that ZZZ2 and ZZZ3 Centers must have divided up ZZZ airspace and radar coverage; and were now allowing routing through this airspace. When ZZZ2 Center was controlling us; they asked us for our ZZZZZ [waypoint] time estimate; and gave us the instruction to contact ZZZ3 Center 35 miles north of ZZZZZ. We were never told radar coverage would be lost.  When we checked in with ZZZ3 we were told we were in radar contact. Several other Company flights; as well as other airline traffic; were also flying through this 'closed' ZZZ Airspace and under the control of ZZZ2 Center.Dispatch sent us a message later in the flight asking the Captain to call upon landing. There was a question with the Dispatcher as to the legality of flying through domestic airspace without radar coverage. (Dispatch used the term 'uncontrolled' airspace.) The Captain mentioned we didn't think we were ever in uncontrolled airspace; as we were in Class A airspace.  He explained to Dispatch that we thought the centers had provided coverage throughout the flight.I am writing this in case we inadvertently flew through domestic airspace without adequate ATC control; and therefore unintentionally violated a company policy.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving an amended clearance due to a ATC Center going ATC Zero and questioned if they had violated an FAR by flying in uncontrolled airspace.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During Takeoff and after V1 we noticed a failure of the copilot's airspeed. This was apparent due to IAS comparison monitor on both MFD's and the copilot's airspeed being completely off from what the left side and standby readouts read. We continued the climb ran the checklist and came to the conclusion to go to ADC Rev. on the copilot's side [since] the information on that side was erroneous. ATC then assigned us FL210 and during that climb ATC also made us aware of crossing traffic that would be above us at FL220. As we were leveling at FL210 the crossing traffic called that they were receiving and RA and ATC questioned our altitude. Everything showed level FL210; then I switched the copilot out of reversionary mode. At that moment we noticed that the left side and standby showed level at FL210 and that the right side showed us leveling about 180 feet high. We notified ATC that we had a pitot static issue that was causing erroneous altitude and airspeed indications. Basically we were operating where the copilots airspeed was failed; and pilot altitude and standby indications were erroneous (both MFD's also had intermittent ALT comparison monitors). We then proceeded to use ATC to verify level at the remaining assigned altitudes. We contacted our company chief pilot notifying him of the failures and decided to divert to a suitable VMC airport. We continued to check in with each ATC frequency notifying them of the condition we were experiencing and verifying altitudes. We continued without incident and landed safely with the failures continuing all the way to landing.




Synopsis: Crew experienced erroneous airspeed indications on the copilot's indicator. Crew was then alerted by ATC and subsequent TCAS Resolution Advisory of deviations from assigned altitude. Crew corrected the altitude deviation with the help of ATC and diverted to a nearby VMC airport.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fan Blade
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector; Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ Line Maintenance CFM56-7B Fan Blade Replacement Due To Damage. AMT sent from ZZZ1 to accomplish because no one in Station Qualified to do Repair Task. A RII Qualification Requirement 'Note' was found after Accomplishing CBT (Computer Based Training) for general knowledge on DATE prior to Aircraft X Fan Blade Vibe Repair. After some research 'Note' was also Found in AMM Fan Blade Removal (Complete Set). However Job Card Being Used for both Aircraft with General Information also not having any 'Note' for RII Qualification Requirements.RII Item First and Second Stage Fan Blades Only Requires RII For Install. There aren't any 'Notes' called out for Qualification Requirements for the CFM56-7B RII First Stage Fan Blades Install. There aren't any RII Qualification Requirements for the CFM56-7B in GPM. There aren't any RII Qualification 'Notes' in Job Card. There aren't any 'Notes' in any Fan Blade Install AMM Tasks where they should be if there is a real Qualification Requirement.Send all Inspectors to formal classroom training. Have it show up in LMS (Line Maintenance Station) Qualification Report. Apply 'Note' to all Locations of the GPM and AMM where needed. That being said the RII Policies don't exist for Removal Procedures.




Synopsis: Inspector reported no personnel at station were qualified to perform CFM56-7B fan blade replacement. Inspector reported that The Company elected to send a qualified individual from another station.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After a bounced landing; the aircraft landed too hard on the nose gear; which then partially collapsed. The FAA representative on scene classified the event as an incident.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Sonex experienced a partial nose gear collapse following a bounced landing.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute; after initial climb to 13;000 feet and setting cruise power; I began to feel disoriented; confused; nauseated and groggy.  I was wearing O2 and checked my O2 saturation and found it to be 97%; however my pulse was 130.  I was concerned but not alarmed.  However; I found that my fingertips and end of my nose began to tingle and feel numb and I became alarmed.  Since my O2 saturation was good; I suspected CO effects from an exhaust leak and was concerned with my ability to continue the flight.  Since I was feeling ill; I decided that the best decision was to land immediately.  I was near and airport notified ATC that I was declaring an emergency and began an emergency descent to [a nearby airport].  I landed uneventfully 5 minutes later.  Since I suspected CO (carbon monoxide) poisoning; I left the plane [there] and hired an A&P to inspect the plane for exhaust leaks before returning to retrieve the plane.  I continued my trip via commercial airline.Although I do not have proof; I strongly suspect an exhaust leak and CO poisoning as the plane had backfired in the day previous; which was unusual.  Knowing that a backfire could indicate an exhaust leak; I should have removed the cowling and closely inspected the plane before flying again.  The long climb; flown rich of peak mixture probably contributed to CO entering the cabin.  Additionally; I have purchased a CO detector for use in the plane.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported feeling the effects of suspected carbon monoxide poisoning; an emergency was declared; and a divert accomplished.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the run up phase of the flight; the right alternator out light illuminated; then remained steady. Shortly after a burning electrical smell was noticed by both the Captain and myself. It was decided to return to the terminal and [request priority handling] for safety purposes. During the taxi back the Emergency Checklist was completed and the smell dissipated. Upon arrival at the terminal the flight was disembarked and the passengers were directed to a safe area. The fire department checked the aircraft. No further issues found.


Second narrative: During the run up phase of the flight; the R ALT OUT light illuminated intermittently; then remained steady. Shortly thereafter a burning electrical smell was noticed by both the crew members. It was determined that a immediate return to the terminal was required. As PIC I elected to request priority handling and requested fire services at the terminal. Once we received taxi clearance back to the terminal; as a crew; we ran the Red Box Items for smoke in the cabin. Before pulling the Battery/Alternator Gang bar I notified ground that we will be shutting down electrical power and notified ZZZ Ops that we were returning to the terminal and need to expedite the passengers disembarking and that the fire department is responding. Once we reached the terminal; as the fire department was arriving to the aircraft I briefed the passengers on the situation and told them to exit the aircraft and remain behind the wing as the gate agent opened the door. I elected to not execute a emergency evacuation as it was determined the burning electrical smell was dissipating once we shut down the electrical sources. The flight concluded without further incident. A burned up alternator; the electrical smell may have been due to the alternator burning up and the cabin ventilation was sucking in the fumes.


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported that an alternator failed during engine run up; resulting in a return to the gate.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Non-Flight
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: CLE Jeppesen Page 10-6; is outdated. Standardized Taxi Routes name taxiways incorrectly. For example to RWY 24L it states Juliet; Sierra; Lima; Whiskey.  Taxiway Juliet and Sierra do not intersect and Taxiway Whiskey does not exist. To RWY 24R Grey also states Juliet; Sierra. Confusion can easily occur if issued these taxi routes as the taxiways have been reconfigured since the published date.Outdated Jepp Chart. Update this 10-6 page to reflect current taxiways or eliminate if CLE no longer uses Standardized Taxi Routes.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported out dated airport charts for CLE.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Helicopter landing on the runway at ZZZ had called full stop landing on Runway XX. During the landing Aircraft Y; called that they were departing the same runway. The helicopter radioed that they would be delayed on the runway. The helicopter was leaving centerline of runway to exit the runway when Aircraft Y on take off flew directly overhead of the helicopter. When asked if it saw the helicopter on the runway the Aircraft Y pilot responded that; they had not seen the helicopter.




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported a departing aircraft flew directly over them as they taxied off the runway.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Pushback
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On receipt of a Dangerous Goods message (Dry Ice); we discussed it and the need for the final dangerous good message before push. Per that conversation; I folded that message and hung it from a switch on the Mode Control Panel. The objective was to have that page visible and reminder not to push without final notification. When all of the usual items and checklists were complete; I called for the 'before pushback checklist' which was completed; and we called for push. During the pushback procedure I noticed that we had not yet received the required final dangerous goods message. That message was requested and received before we disconnected from the pushback tug.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported initiating pushback without DG Final documents onboard. Documents were requested and delivered during pushback.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BMI.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BMI
ATC / advisory: Tower BMI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the visual to Runway 20; just passed the final approach fixed; the FO (First Officer) was descending to catch the glide slope indication for the ILS 20 which was being used as a backup to the visual approach. At 1800 ft MSL he disconnected the autopilot and stopped our descent. He stated we looked low compared to what the glide slope indicated. At this moment ATC advised us they received an altitude low warning on our aircraft. We acknowledged and corrected the flight path to continue the approach. The Captain advised ATC [that] the glide slope was giving the wrong information. ATC responded saying the ILS was out of service. At this point we realized the NOTAM for the ILS was still active. We briefed the NOTAM was inactive and would not affect the approach.The main cause of this event was a misinterpretation of the NOTAM that stated the ILS was out of service. Contributing factors included: Quickly looking at the NOTAMS during descent; having the EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) on a low brightness setting and having the release in a non-inverted setting.   This event can be prevented by reading/ understanding the NOTAMs completely and therefore not rely on a system that is out of service.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a low altitude alert from Tower on final approach.