elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORL.Airport, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Aircraft: Jet/Long Ranger/206
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower ORL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Other Laser
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was covering a high school football game for my TV station. I arrived on scene and was sporadically illuminated by a green laser from someone in the stadium bleachers. It continued most of the time I was there; approx. 2+ hrs. My photographer contacted our station and asked them to contact the County Sheriff's Office so they could try to apprehend the person(s). I was unable to contact any County Sheriff's airborne units; so I contacted ATC and asked if they would contact the Sheriff's unit on the airport; and have the Sheriff's contact me on the helicopter air-to-air freq; which they did. The Sheriff's dispatched a helicopter to my location; hoping that they would be illuminated also; which they were. My photographer was lucky enough to capture a laser hit on my aircraft; and told the station. Personnel at the station were able to clean up that image enough; that they sent it to the Sheriff's Office; which then disseminated it to the officers on the ground; who were covering the game. At half-time; officers were able to identify the suspects; and detained them for questioning. Unfortunately; the laser wasn't found on them; so they were released. Not surprisingly; I had no further laser illuminations for the duration of the time I covered the game. As an aside; the Sheriff's told me that players on the field reported being illuminated; also. I love it when the technology of our very powerful camera; microwave transmitted the image to our station; my station cleaning up the image; emailing it to the Sheriff's Office; then the Sheriff's Office emailing it to Officers on the ground all comes together. All done in less than 5 minutes.




Synopsis: News helicopter pilot reports being illuminated by an individual in in a high school football stadium. The Sheriff is notified and with the help of the news crew; the perpetrators are identified and apprehended; however no laser pointer is found on their persons.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cleaning and lubricating cables on the elevator in the tail compartment; I had my hand in the tail compartment through the access panel against the forward bulkhead of the tail compartment. It is a pinch point or an area that could cause injury. A warning step or note needs to be put into the work card to alert the technician that it is a tight area with moving parts with a potential for injury.I had to quickly move my hand as the linkage from the elevator quadrant started moving down while my hand was under it and there was very little space to maneuver and stay on the cable. I was in contact with the other technician that was moving the elevator and it was not being moved quickly and we were not using hydraulics to move but moved by hand from the flight deck.It would be better to be moved with the other tech on the tail and moving the elevator by hand.Put a caution step on the work card warning of a confined area or a pinch point or injury potential in this area. Have the extra person move the elevator by hand from the tail so there is the most direct communication possible.




Synopsis: Technician reported that he was almost injured during a maintenance procedure; and recommended the procedure be revised.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Due to dirty musty odor Captain decided to refuse airplane. Entry made. Unknown heavy odor throughout the Aircraft Cabin. Since unsure if odor was toxic; Captain decided to refuse airplane.


Second narrative: During preflight duties working a flight from ZZZ to ZZ1 I noticed a distinct smell when walking into the flight deck. My Captain walked in behind me and noticed the same smell. At first we thought nothing of it and we continued with the preflight. I put my bags away and started preflighting the Flight Deck. While my Captain completed the exterior walk around. As we continued the preflight duties the smell did not dissipate. My Captain walked in from the preflight and noticed the smell was not gone. Our flight attendants noticed the same smell. We tried to turn off the APU bleed air and wait for the smell to dissipate. There was no change. The entire crew was concerned with our health and the Captain decided to remove the entire crew from the aircraft. The aircraft was refused for flight and an entry was made. A new aircraft was assigned. Unknown cause at this time. I am unaware of the causes of these events and this was my first occurrence. The smell was possibly comparable to a dirt sock or musty odor.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported a fume event during preflight while parked at Gate. After trouble shooting with no change the Captain refused the aircraft; a logbook entry was submitted. A different aircraft was assigned.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Traffic Collision Avoidance System Traffic Advisory on Approach. Was Pilot Flying on Flight ZZZ-RSW. Flew the SHFTY 5 RNAV Arrival for the ILS Runway 06. Handed off to RSW Approach. Was instructed to expect the visual Runway 06 with vector over Estero Bay. Given a northwest vector (right-base-to-final) before PONTY intersection. Cleared for the visual by approach inside of TROPC intersection (IAF; D12.6 IRSW) I selected 1500 ft. into the Altitude Window for DOLPN (FAF) and pulled Open Descent. I armed the approach mode. To the best of my memory; I know we were inland of the bay; approximately 2 miles before DOLPN when capturing the localizer. The aircraft was approximately between an altitude of 1700 ft. to 1500 ft. descending when I viewed an intermittent proximate intruder Traffic Collision Avoidance System display. It was visible; gone; visible at first and quite erratic. I was already in the 10 mile range. The First Officer and I immediately began a quick scan for traffic in the area. At about the time the aircraft captured 1500 ft.; we received an aural 'Traffic; Traffic' TA advisory. However; I saw no amber TA intruder symbol but a white proximate traffic symbol showing 1500 ft. below our altitude which was still at 1500 ft. We both continued our scans; and the target disappeared. The First Officer queried the Tower for any known traffic in the area; to which he responded no. We continued the approach; caught the glide slope and landed uneventfully. [The cause was the targets were] erratic; realistically made no sense with the altitudes; not visible to the crew; and unknown to ATC.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving traffic alerts from his TCAS even though ATC reported no aircraft in his vicinity.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 0W3.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G 0W3
ATC / advisory: CTAF 0W3
Second aircraft: Piper Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While dealing with monitoring runway incursions committed by local [company] ground vehicles crossing the departure end of Runway 28; I looked for aircraft on approach to land on Runway 28. No traffic observed I announced back-taxi Runway 28. As I taxied east on Runway 28 I observed a low wing airplane on short final then heard Aircraft Y announce 'Short final landing Runway 28.' To avoid collision I taxied onto a perpendicular runway under construction. I announced I was unable to clear the runway safety area. The pilot of Aircraft Y announced 'You're good' as I held position inside the runway safety area. Aircraft Y landed without incident and exited the runway for fuel service. My perception of the event is the pilot of Aircraft Y made the decision to continue approach and landing knowing I was still inside the runway safety area because in his judgment my position did not pose a collision threat. Essentially the pilot of Aircraft Y exploited provisions of 14 CFR 91.119 (g) by forcing me off the runway. Furthermore the pilot displayed complacency and arrogance by accepting a risk on my behalf.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported that another aircraft landed despite being told that the runway was not clear; resulting in a runway incursion.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon visual approach into Runway 35R at DEN; heavy south tailwinds kept crew higher than normal and crew performed a go-around. ATC gave crew vectors back to try again as ATC said surface winds were light out of the north. crew attempted visual approach again and on short final; ATC announced winds were 160/14; which once again prompted a go-around. Crew requested a south runway and was told that ATC was thinking about changing the runway flow but haven't made a decision at that point. A few minutes later we were told it would be about a half hour to get a south runway. Other aircraft on north approach were going around also due to winds. ATC finally offered us Runway 26 saying it was the best they could do. Crew landed Runway 26 with 20-knot south crosswind and was cleared to taxi to BN via Taxiway M. Crew held short of BN on M without ATC instruction due to aircraft sitting at Spot XX at BN. After several minutes; ramp cleared the one aircraft out of our way but several more were approaching BN. Ramp finally cleared us to gate without further incident. ATC needs to have contingency plan for wind changes in DEN. This is a regular problem. Multiple go-arounds by several aircraft decreases the level of safety to airmen. Ground Control also needs to coordinate better with Ramp Control. Terrible communication leads to safety threats. Multiple go-arounds due to tailwinds and inefficient taxi.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a regular problem of DEN ATC slow to change active runway due to wind direction changes. Multiple go-arounds due to excessive tailwinds by arriving aircraft.
Date: 201701
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed San Diego Runway 9 below minimums of 400' and 1 3/4 visibility. At pushback the ATIS reported weather 400' and 1 3/4 visibility. We were number seven or eight for departure. Visibility from the cockpit was not considered an issue. I was not concerned the weather might be below takeoff mins. Our push to takeoff was 33 minutes. The ATIS changed to 400' and 1 1/4 Visibility. We followed other aircraft in takeoff sequence with the weather unknowingly below mins. I failed to check the airport takeoff minimums page. After takeoff I heard another aircraft challenge the Tower about the minimums for takeoff. I later checked the takeoff minimums chart and recognized my error.Crew must verify takeoff minimums regardless of perceived adequte conditions and not rely on Tower Controller. The Company should add a safety alert on San Diego's unusually high takeoff minimums.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew unknowingly departed SAN to the east with the weather below takeoff minimums.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Close to push time; we received our takeoff data when Ops Agent (name) brought Air Waybill XXX-XXXXXXXX for me to sign. I verified the Origin; Flight Number/Date; and Destination. I commented there was no specifications for HAZMAT (Hazardous Materials). I signed the form and we left. While en route; I noticed the note in the Pilot In Command box: 'PIC Verify Dispatch Release remarks indicate HAZMAT. If no HAZMAT remarks is shown; contact the flight's Dispatcher for Dispatch Release revision or amendment.' There were no remarks on the Dispatch Release indicating HAZMAT. There was no wording on the Air Waybill indicating HAZMAT. I contacted Dispatch in ZZZ1 and they had not been notified of any HAZMAT material. He explained the Ops Agent is responsible for advising Dispatch of HAZMAT so the information would be entered in the Remarks section. Initially they were not sure how fire extinguisher and oxygen cylinder were classified but later learned they are considered HAZMAT.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported undocumented Hazmat cargo transported due to erroneous Hazmat documents were provided to flight crew at departure.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LLLL.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center LLLL
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Company Policy
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Approximately 200 miles from LLBG; as we enter or exit their airspace; the GPS becomes unreliable. It is not an airplane issue and appears to be some sort of temporary blocking of the signal. This is an informational only report at the request of Flight Operations.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported overseas GPS jamming.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D MYF
ATC / advisory: Tower MYF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on final on the ILS 28R to MYF the tower told me that there was traffic on downwind about to turn base. I looked; but was unable to see the traffic and so stated to the tower. Twice more I notified the tower that I did not have the traffic in sight. When I was on very short final the tower told the other aircraft to go around. The conflicting traffic then appeared from under the nose of my aircraft; quite close; below me and climbing through my altitude.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported an NMAC on final at MYF.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was operating a DJI Mavic 2 in Class G airspace in the vicinity of ZZZ airport. All operations were conducted in coordination with the pilot of a manned aircraft on the taxiway and the runway. All operations were conducted in accordance with 14CFR107 and no regulations were broken; nor any safety risk or interference created by the operation of the UAS in Class G airspace to the best of my knowledge. The local airport manager did approach me and asked me to land the UAS as he stated it was illegal to operate near an airport; and I did land and attempted to contact the local FSDO by phone. Later the airport manager made contact with the local [FAAST Program Manager] at the FSDO who stated by phone it was 'illegal to operate a drone within 5nm of an airport'. Despite that not being true under 14CFR107; we did not operate the UAS further; and left the airport. [Local] FSDO emailed me stating 'I am attempting to contact you regarding UAS (drone) operation at the ZZZ airport yesterday. I have some questions I need to ask of you.' FSDO requested the registration for the UAS I regularly fly and inquired if I had ever operated over people. I replied I had not ever operated over people and have always conducted operations in accordance with 14CFR107. FSDO responded: 'I have been assigned by the office to conduct an investigation into the operation of your drone at the ZZZ Airport.' At no point was any part of 14CFR107 violated; however; it is clear that local FSDO offices have inconsistencies in knowledge of 14CFR; and inspectors do not appear to be complying with FAA Order 8900.1.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported being advised by local FSDO that an investigation of recent operations of his UAV in the vicinity of an airport was being initiated.