elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201211
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Special Use ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on patrol; flying an Unmanned Aircraft (MQ-9) the pilot flying contacted Center and requested clearance into a Restricted Area. Center approved the clearance and the crew proceeded to fly into the airspace. While entering the airspace; the crew contacted Range Control and advised their intent. Range Control advised that the airspace was active and not under Center's control. Pilot flying proceeded to turn around and exit the airspace without further incidents.




Synopsis: ATC cleared a MQ-9 into restricted airspace believing it was under their control but the pilot was notified by Range Control after entry that the area was active so he exited immediately.
Date: 201703
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: APU Pneumatic System & Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On taxi in and deplaning process cabin filled with strong exhaust electrical burning smell. We deplaned everyone and quickly got off the plane ourselves. Experienced choking; coughing; nickel taste; headaches and eye and throat irritation. Mechanics stated they might have found a 2 inch hole in the APU pack.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported smoke and fumes in the cabin and experienced illness after the event.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CVG.Airport, KY
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground CVG
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were taxiing for takeoff from the Ramp getting ready for takeoff. We held short of taxiway Sierra and contacted ground for taxi. CVG ground told us to hold position and we complied. A few seconds later the ground controller said 'Aircraft X; there is a 767 (Aircraft Y) that will be passing you from right to left heading north on Sierra. Give way to that aircraft and taxi; Sierra/Tango to [Runway] 36R.' We read back the instructions with no conflict. At that time; there was Aircraft Y immediately to our right passing right to left. We let him pass and started rolling onto Sierra southbound to 36R. The visibility was poor; 3/4 SM; but greater than 6;000 RVR. It had been raining all morning and the windows were foggy as well. As we rolled onto Sierra; the PIC noticed lights in the oncoming direction. After a few moments the flight crew realized that it was another 767 (Aircraft Z) quickly approaching head on. The PIC got on the radios and said 'the 767 heading north on Sierra needs to stop immediately' in which the other aircraft responded 'We're stopping.' ATC then got on the radio and asked if that was [callsign] who just said that. We responded in the affirmative. He then questioned us why we didn't wait for the 767 to pass us and the PIC responded that we did wait for the 767 to pass us; and that we were not aware that there were 2 767's on Sierra; and that the visibility was very poor. ATC did not ask for any more information.We were able to make a 180 degree turn and continue North on Sierra/T5/Tango to 36R. The flight continued with no further abnormalities. In the future; the flight crew could have been more aware of the situation by monitoring ground prior to holding short of the ramp to paint a bigger picture and improve overall SA (Situational Awareness). In addition; the flight crew must remind themselves to always be vigilant and hyper aware of their surrounds.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported a ground conflict due to a communication breakdown with ATC.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I inherited a military charter that was enroute. After arrival the Captain called to let me know that the loading schedule leaving the intermediate station had no payload; freight; bags or passengers. The flight started on the East coast and came to the domicile for new crew; no pax on or off. I called the Dispatcher who I took over for when the flight departed.The Ops Agent at the intermediate stop should use the originating loading schedule for bags/freight weight and location; and passenger weights as long as nobody gets on or off.


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


Synopsis: A Captain called Dispatch to report the loading schedule from the previous station did not include any payload; freight; bags or passengers. The flight was military charter with no off loads or passenger load change at the previous station.
Date: 201305
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: After logging into my dispatch computer software via the prescribed methods; I found that almost two hours into my shift; connectivity failed. Until I was advised to log into the dispatch software via a backup method (that I am told was in a test mode) I was unable to receive ACARS messages from my flights. This lasted for about 10 minutes until the backup method was in place. I did advise my flights via an old method that I was not receiving ACARS traffic and to contact me via Commercial Radio [relay] if communication was necessary.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported that his new dispatch computer software normal connectivity failed which required that an alternated login method was needed but ACARS was then no longer available.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The event was an unacceptable increase in workload during descent into Chicago. ATC provided the flight with a clearance which included a STAR for arrival. On arrival the ATC facility changed the Arrival STAR three times for no apparent reason. The runway assignment remained unchanged during the arrival and landing. The first STAR assignment and the final STAR assignment had us tracking closely over the same flight path; the second assigned STAR provided a clear path to the runway while the others required Radar vectoring. The workload was intensified during the entire arrival due to the various changes in STAR assignments. This in my view was unacceptable; each change came with a clearance direct to a point we were already proceeding direct to.There did not seem to be a reason for the many reroutes. While one can understand being assigned a new STAR when it becomes necessary due to airport landing configuration changes; or when balancing the load; however; this did not seem to be the case. We arrived exactly as we would have on any of the arrivals assigned for landing on the expected runway. The STAR or procedure should be assigned and once on the arrival the changes should be kept to a minimum. There are many things happening in the airspace surrounding ORD that don't seem to have rhyme or reason easily understood by the flight crew. The dive and drive mentality of the ATC system in ORD is out dated and procedures should be established that support the modern aircraft navigation method. The lack of profile altitudes and speeds on the arrivals into ORD dictate that the aircraft speeds and altitudes be manually provided. VHF frequency congestion is becoming an obstacle to safe and efficient operations as well. The situation from a high altitude view can be solved by automating the airspace and providing profile procedures that allow for minimum workload in the cockpit and a high level of situational awareness to the crew. This can be fixed by applying the new procedures to the airspace.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported the arrival STAR was changed three times during descent into ORD for no apparent reason.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VMC; 80
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340A
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller Assembly
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
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 Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight 140 miles after departing; the #1 Propeller oil pressure began to decrease. We complied with the QRH (quick reference handbook) and monitored oil pressure until oil pressure declined requiring shutdown action. ZZZZ airport was closest to us with emergency services and I requested deviation there and airport emergency services were alerted. Descent; Approach and landing were normal and Emergency services meet the aircraft at the local FBO facility. Passengers were transferred to a commercial flight and enroute to destination within hours of landing. Company flew out needed parts and mechanic. Repairs were made that same day and aircraft was returned to service after repairs were accomplished.


Second narrative: I was serving as SIC on the flight and we experienced a loss of left prop. oil pressure. Also we were able to visually confirm that there is an oil leak coming from the left Eng. We ran the QRH and shutdown the left engine to prevent catastrophic damage due to lack of oil lubrication. After shutting down the Eng. we deviated to ZZZZ where we have safely landed.


Synopsis: SF340 flight crew experiences loss of oil pressure and the engine is shut down. The flight diverts to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201209
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Airport Markings
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: This is a general safety concern. Approaching Runway 31C at MDW for takeoff; we found it very difficult to see runway hold short markings. Lighting was very poor and there was heavy rain at the time. I believe that better markings and/or lighting are very much needed at this airport.




Synopsis: A pilot reported that the MDW Runway 31C Hold Short Line is difficult to see at night and in the rain. Better lighting and/or more contrasting markings in that area are needed.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
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: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC cleared us for a visual approach to Runway 16R into Denver after turning us on to a right base approximately 5 miles from MERYN intersection on the ILS 16R. After being cleared for the visual approach the First Officer (FO) selected the approach mode and a selected a slower speed. The FO was slow to turn towards MERYN and over shot the final approach course. I instructed to FO to turn immediately toward the runway and then back to the final approach course. The approach controller asked if we need a vector and I declined. The FO had previously briefed the ILS to 35R. During the approach briefing we discussed threats that included high elevation; an MEL that restricted RNAV approaches; and that we were tired. The flight was cleared to descend via the TBARR 1 RNAV Arrival with the Runway 16R transition. The transition ends at CLFFF intersection at 11;000' with a speed of 210 knots. ATC was informed that we could not accept an RNAV approach and we were told to expect a visual approach; which we backed up with the ILS approach. The flight was turned to a right base heading at 210 knots. While turning the FO requested a slower speed which ATC approved. ATC asked if we had the airport insight. When I replied that we had the runway insight we were cleared for the visual approach. The FO selected the approach mode. As the FO was selecting a slower speed I mentioned that she should turn toward MERYN intersection. She slowly selected a heading toward MERYN and over shot the final approach course. I think this was due to the angle in which the course was intercepted. I would suggest adding a discussion about accepting visual approaches to the approach briefing; as a possible threat.




Synopsis: Captain reported overshooting final approach course on a visual approach into Denver.
Date: 201909
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Seaplane or Amphibian
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While departing from Lake Berryessa (seaplane water takeoff from the lake); I spotted a paraglider being towed up to altitude by a boat on the lake. As paragliders commonly operate in this area and do not communicate with pilots on the CTAF; searching for them is part of my standard scan. As the towline is rarely visible from the air; I kept my eyes fixed on both the boat and the paraglider so that I could mentally draw a line where the tow cable should be. As I climbed up through 3;500 feet (staying clear of the paraglider); I saw something that looked like a small scratch on the transparent canopy of my aircraft. Upon further inspection; I realized it was the towline of a second paraglider; and made an immediate evasive action to avoid it. During the maneuver I spotted the paraglider several hundred feet up above me. In short; I was so focused on avoiding the first paraglider I completely missed a second one until I almost made contact with the tow line. As a seaplane pilot who is very familiar with the area and has hundreds of hours flying in and out of Lake Berryessa; this is extremely worrisome to me. Lake Berryessa has quite a bit of aviation traffic; and I have never felt concerned about midair collisions as all pilots in the area communicate with each other on 122.9. However; the lack of communication from the paragliders causes an extreme threat; especially to pilots not familiar with the airspace/seasonal operation of paragliders. Over the past two years; this problem has gotten worse and worse as the frequency of paraglider operations; the size of their operation area on the lake; and the number of tow boats pulling gliders at the same time have all increased. In my opinion; requiring the paraglide boats to monitor 122.9; or mark the towline with streamers for visibility; would go a long way to decrease the likelihood of a midair collision.




Synopsis: Light seaplane pilot reported an NMAC in the vicinity of Lake Berryessa with a paraglider and its towline. Reporter recommended that paraglider operators monitor CTAF or mark the towlines with streamers.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were in the VFR traffic pattern for runway 31. The winds were favoring 31 and there was another VFR aircraft in the pattern. There was an instrument training flight shooting a VOR approach to runway 13. We were coming to a stop on 31 for a stop and go and I asked if the instrument airplane was going to be missed to the west soon right before we took off; and he said he was about to turn to heading 250 and climb to 3000 feet. We announced on CTAF that we were taking off on 31 for left closed traffic and nobody had any reaction. I was instructing my student through the takeoff and right after we lifted off I looked up and saw the instrument airplane a few hundred feet off of the ground approaching the departure end of 31 (near the numbers of 13) and they were at about our 10 o'clock (the VOR approach for 13 is slightly crooked). I took controls and maneuvered our airplane and the instrument airplane did the same and we both avoided each other; but came relatively close. The other airplane did a very steep turn and continued on their approach and came over the radio telling us that their approach took them there. They then went missed and departed the area and we stayed in the pattern. My suggestion is for instrument training aircraft doing opposite direction approaches to respect airplanes that are already in the pattern at that airport. If they want to shoot the full approach; consider making up a number for minimums at a higher altitude that will keep them away from aircraft in the pattern for the correct runway. In hindsight; I should not have departed until I saw them actually turning away from the airport; instead of believing their radio call.




Synopsis: A flight instructor reported an airborne conflict during a stop-and-go takeoff with another training aircraft performing an opposite direction missed approach maneuver.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MNMG.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MNMG
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Crew had current Commercial Chart plates for MNMG which indicated Runway 10. We were cleared to land Runway 9. We assumed MNMG Tower was saying Runway 9 instead of 10 out of habit. It was Runway 9; and isn't scheduled to become Runway 10 until December. Apparently the Chart's Company put out Runway 10 plates a bit early. Landing was uneventful.


Second narrative: Crew had airport and runway insight; continued the approach and landed in VMC conditions.


Synopsis: A flight crew on approach to MNMG Runway 9 had only the MNMG Runway 10 approach plate; but the runway was not scheduled to be re-designated until December 2012.