elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the primary marshaller bringing a flight into the gate. The gate is a dog-leg gate and requires a precision turn directed by the primary marshaller in order to hand of directions to the final marshaller. I was still issuing my SOP hand signals marshalling the A320 forward when the captain took it upon himself to turn the aircraft well before the dog-leg. He was only half way down the line and coming in way too fast and not slowing down. There was no time to signal to slow down before he turned for it wasn't until he completely turned and showed his broadside before I realized how fast he was going. While he turned; I could see the Captain shaking his head and muttering something as if he was upset. It was at this point I realized that the #1 engine was fast approaching my position and threatening to overtake me. I had to back up rapidly to avoid the danger that it posed. At this time; I looked at my final marshaller and he hadn't yet realized what was going on; he wasn't even providing any hand signals because he was looking at me waiting for me to turn the plane (which I didn't); yet the plane was still coming. At the last moments; the final marshaller managed to signal for the plane to stop in time to hit his mark and not over shoot the stopping line. We were all baffled. We were hoping to speak with a flight deck crew member on their walk around; but nobody came down to perform a walk around. We are assuming that they just left after passengers deplaned.




Synopsis: Ramp Marshall reports an A320 Captain taxiing too fast and not following directions during taxi into a gate requiring two Marshalls and a dog leg turn for alignment.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Ultralight
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 103
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Tail Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I transferred ownership of an ultralight in 2013 but the new owner failed to come and get the small single seat aircraft. Fearing that the upcoming winter would damage the airframe; I contacted the new owner and offered to get the plane running and fly it to the new owner's location. The carb had clogged and the spark system had failed in the 2 years that the plane sat out of use. After a couple months of work the engine started and I began some taxi tests. I started to taxi on the runway with takeoff at the time a possible option; I tried to gain speed first. I erred by not holding the stick forward and pulled back on the stick to a neutral position; at which point the tailwheel contacted the pavement the plane began a violent side to side motion and the tailwheel broke causing a ground loop to the left and the front of the aircraft came in contact with the glide slope indicator light; the light shearing off from its' moorings and ended up on the ground. A tenant at the airport came out with his pickup truck and we towed the aircraft back to its parking spot. I have started with repairs but presently do not have enough money to cover a new tailwheel and a new prop. Having not flown the ultralight for 2 years I should have built up speed more gradually and the best way to control the defective tailwheel would have been to hold it off the ground.




Synopsis: Ultralight pilot reported losing control of his aircraft during high speed taxi tests. An apparently defective tail wheel is allowed to contact the runway resulting in a ground loop and damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Balloon
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A company has been launching unmanned weather balloons from an airport for several months.  They are launched 3 to 5 at a time and climb slowly (approximately 3 hundred FPM) to an altitude above FL600; remain at altitude for a while; and then descend.  They are equipped with transponders and are 'tracked' by the FLM via a website that is not accurate.  The specific incident that occurred today was Mode C not showing on one of the tracked balloon targets and an aircraft was passing about 1/2 mile from the balloon target.  I informed the Aircraft X about the balloon and asked him if he wanted a vector he said yes and confirmed it passed about 4 miles off his left about 5;000 feet above them.  According to the Company website the FLM was monitoring; the balloon was at approximately 70;000 feet; which was completely incorrect.  Without the vector and some distrust of information being told to me; this could have been very close to a NMAC.    This is not an isolated incident and has occurred several times before.  It's hard to say what would make this safer to the flying public other than set up a TFR around this operation.




Synopsis: Controller reports of unmanned weather balloons that have a tracking system with altitude reply that is incorrect.  This causes problems with aircraft in the NAS by not knowing exactly where the balloons are.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
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
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The morning was routine with our briefings; as well as our brief discussion of the weather. For the most part; our route was south of the weather. We were flying at FL380 rides were deteriorating at all altitudes. En route; we were deviating south of some weather after it was determined we would not be on top of it. Later on; ATC gave us new routing; putting us closer to the weather. As we got closer to our destination; there was some more weather in the area. We evaluated deviation versus topping the weather. We both agreed we would easily top it and be in the clear; shortly thereafter; the Pitch Limit Indicator (PLI) and the airspeed decreasing. Then; we encountered a severe downdraft followed by the aircraft banking aggressively left to right. The stick shaker; bank angle; then later; the overspeed warnings came on. I lowered the nose as well as tried to return the aircraft to a wings level condition. I glanced at the radar to try to find somewhere smoother to go; but there was nothing anywhere on the radar. For awhile later; there was still moderate turbulence. We declared an emergency; and the Captain called the flight attendants several times to check on them and the passengers. We proceeded to our destination. The approach; landing; and taxi in were uneventful. At the gate; we tried to help check on the flight attendants and passengers.


Second narrative: Downdraft caused a descent from FL380 to FL310 and we also experienced left and right rolling of the aircraft. Made a PA to tell all onboard to insure seat belts were fastened. We recovered at FL310 climbed to FL320 declared and emergency with Center. I was in contact with the flight attendants who were keeping me informed of the situation in the cabin. Paramedics met the aircraft at the gate to take care of any injured. I made a logbook entry in the aircraft maintenance log regarding the severe turbulence encounter.


Synopsis: A B737-800 encountered severe turbulence at FL380 where; in a downdraft; it descended to FL310 after which an emergency was declared and upon arrival at the destination paramedics met the aircraft to attend the injured.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had to bring back [taxing] flight because of [load configuration error] requirement of the15 bags [missing] around the Dangerous Good cargo.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ramp Agent reported departure taxi aircraft requested to gate return to correct Hazmat load configuration error.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [During the] landing from an unstabilized approach into ZZZ; I began configuring the aircraft very late which resulted in excessive airspeed throughout the approach and landing. I feel that contributing factors include: lack of recency; abnormally low traffic resulting in no slowing issued by Approach Control which is unusual for ZZZ; [and] my personal determination to 'complete the mission' leading to the continued unstable approach and failure to go around in this instance. My determination to 'complete the mission' ultimately led to this unstabilized approach and landing and is something that I have to commit to improve.


Second narrative: We were arriving on the ZZZ XX ILS approach. ATC gave us an intercept to join. Once established we declared the runway visually. The Captain noticed that we were fast for our present position and proceeded to slow down with gear down; followed by Flaps 1 through Flaps Full at their appropriate speeds. I set and verbalized go around altitude; set 2200 blue. We were trending down towards Vapp through 1;000 feet but we were fast. The Captain was communicating his game plan on what he going to do and how he was going to do it. Per policy I didn't give him an unstable callout but was confident of a successful landing as the PAPIs were on path. The PF executed the landing within the touchdown zone and exited on [Taxiway] XX uneventfully.Factors that created the situation. A go-around would have been declared if the TDZ was not going to be made. Additionally; be cognizant not to penetrate the two Prohibited Areas. Medium auto brake was selected and anticipated. Traffic was light during the approach thus no ATC slow downs as was accustomed. During the post-brief discussion; a go-around should have been declared and executed regardless if the TDZ was not going to be made. A mental note for myself on base leg to be 180 KIAS if no speeds are given by ATC.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported uneventfully landing from an unstable approach; whereas per SOP; a go-around should have been executed.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Aircraft component: Altitude Hold/Capture
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending for landing at IAH on the ROKIT1 arrival. Approach Control had advised to expect the ILS to 27; but said the Tower may offer 15R. We were cleared down to 3;000 FT. Approach asked if we had the field about 10 miles out at 10 o'clock; but neither of us could see any runway lights nor the beacon. We were still on the arrival route so the field was not directly in front of us. Approach again asked if we had the field at 8 miles out and cleared us down to 2;000 FT. The pilot not flying set 2;000 FT in the pre-selector and I initiated the descent using the autopilot. We told the Controller our windshield was somewhat fogged up and that neither of us could see the field. We were handed off to the Tower at some point and I'm not sure when in the event it was as I was focused on finding the field. Tower offered us 15R but we still could not find the field. I looked back to our instruments and realized that the autopilot had not captured the 2;000 FT altitude in the pre-selector which happens occasionally and we know to verify the capture. I missed it because I was so intent on finding the field. At approximately 1;400 FT MSL I applied power; disconnected the Autopilot; and climbed back to 2;000 FT. The Controller said he showed us low and reminded us we were assigned 2;000 FT and we acknowledged we were already correcting. We passed the last fix on the arrival and were just continuing on present heading when we acquired 15R. We were too close to make a visual approach so we requested vectors to the 27 ILS and the pilot not flying put that back in the FMS. We were vectored onto the approach and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: Lear 35 First Officer descending to 2;000 FT on autopilot discovers at 1;400 FT that the autopilot has not captured the altitude and corrects.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Around XA:10 noticed an odor in the back portion of the cabin. I called the #1 F/A (Flight Attendant) and discussed odor. The #1 called the flight deck and they advised that 'We went through some precipitation' and the odor should go away. It did not...it became stronger.  I called the flight deck and described what we smelled and that the #1; myself (#2) and #3 flight attendants were symptomatic.  The Captain stated that he would call it in.  We landed around XA:40 and was at gate shortly thereafter.  Deplaned without incident and we all left the aircraft as soon as possible.  We were met by ZZZ1 medical personnel.  Approximately 30-45 minutes later paramedics were called to assess our medical needs.  The #3 and myself (#2) were administered oxygen. My symptoms that I felt immediately became worse as the event progressed and they are as follows:  At the beginning and during the event: Light headed and very foggy brain; tightness in chest; racing heartbeat; more labored/difficulty breathing; tingling of extremities; scratchy throat and headache.  As I write this [next day]; I still have headache; tightness in chest; a cough that was not there before the event; somewhat foggy brain/dizzy; headache. It should be referenced that once maintenance arrived they did smell what we smelled; as it was still present in the cabin; and he noted that it was the smell of burning oil.


Second narrative: Fume Event.


Synopsis: A321 flight attendants reported a fumes event during cruise. Flight attendants were met by paramedics upon gate arrival to evaluate physiological symptoms.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed 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; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Denver 8 controller handed me two aircraft at the same altitude. I noticed that there was a 60 knot overtake and approximately 10 miles in trail of each other. I asked the trailing Aircraft (Aircraft Y) what his speed was. He replied; 'Mach .77' I asked the lead Aircraft (Aircraft X) what his Mach number was. He replied; 'Mach .69.' I asked him if he slowed down on his own; to which he replied; 'We slowed down for the chop; but we told the previous controller.'The Denver 'Controller' never forwarded me the information that the lead aircraft had slowed down. I had to assign speeds to both aircraft. In addition I had to turn Aircraft X out of the way of Aircraft Y to ensure separation. These two aircraft seemed to be the only two Aircraft in Denver Sector 8 airspace at the time.I have no recommendations! I have filled out numerous reports with many suggestions! I have become so frustrated; especially when I bring it up to the Front Line Manager in charge of the area at the time and they snicker at the situation and walk away. My advice that I keep getting from my Area Manager is to keep filling out reports. This has been going on for 25+ years. Unfortunately; I'm afraid it will take loss of innocent lives before something is done about this reckless behavior that has become the standard culture at Denver Center! Sadly; most controllers at ZMP do not fill out reports because they are frustrated with the lack of attention these incidences receive! So; most of the conflictions go unreported on a daily basis! Is it possible that the Denver controller is intentionally sabotaging controllers at ZMP? Last week I filled out a report in which the Denver controller assigned a faster speed to the in trail aircraft and slowed the front aircraft!




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reported a handoff issue with ZDV Controller resulting in a conflict.