elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When I took the sector from the previous controller; he informed me that a B767 at FL340 needed to be descended to FL310 at Santa Maria's request. I sent the clearance then took a break about 10 or 15 minutes later. When I returned to work the following week; my Supervisor informed me that I had hit VHF instead of SEND and the aircraft crossed the boundary with LPAZ at the wrong altitude. Controllers need to be reminded of the need to be extra careful with sending clearances when they work Ocean21. Several CPC's told me they have made the same mistake of hitting VHF since we started using ATOP.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller described a probable airspace error when incorrectly transmitting a data communication; datalink.
Date: 201508
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: It is a complex departure; and we had briefed it; the FO made a note about the headings and turns; but wrote down the wrong DME. I won't make this mistake again. We were cleared LGA5 departure Whitestone climb; but misread the chart and didn't turn back left to 040 at 2.5 DME instead we saw the 4.5 and made our turn there. We had started the turn to 040 when ATC quarried us; if we were indeed on the Whitestone climb. The chart is a mess! I would recommend that Jeppesen break it up into separate departures; or reduce some of the information on it. I have highlighted the DME on it so that it is more visible to me in the future.




Synopsis: The crew misread the charted DME on the LGA5 departure procedure and started their turn two miles late.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During taxi out for takeoff; we received the following message: Captain you have to return to the gate or at least the alley because ZZZ ramp did not secure the Hazmat in accordance with FAA required guidelines. We returned to gate; and parked the aircraft. While I coordinated; the ramp crew properly secured the Hazmat; and once we confirmed that we were legal and our RLS was still valid to continue; we departed without further incident.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a ground gate return due to improperly secure Hazmat cargo in cargo compartment.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp PHL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft was pushed back while the left wing went over the top of two tugs with baggage carts attached to both. One tug and baggage cart came very close to the left engine. When I asked the tug driver on the headset if he knew of the danger he replied that he could not see the 'LINE' because it was wet. He did acknowledge seeing the wing pass over top of the equipment. He also replied with his name and employee number. Two wing walkers were utilized on this pushback as well. Standard procedure not followed as I understand them. Retrain and with emphasis on protecting personal injury as well as protecting equipment. It is evident by the tug driver's distinction of the 'PAINTED LINE' that the rules were known to him; however; not followed. Personal injury (personnel in tugs) was narrowly averted. Very expensive aircraft damage (wing; engine and engine pylon) was; in my opinion; narrowly averted.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain reported that the push back tug driver put the aircraft's left engine very near a tug and baggage cart; acknowledging their presence; but saying he could not see the line because it was wet.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: ATR 72
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Showtime for the Flight Duty Period assigned was XA:30 for a schedule of 4 flight segments. After blocking in from Flight XXXX it became apparently clear that if we continued Flight XXXY/XXXZ we would run into duty limitation issues. I alerted Dispatch but it seemed as if my concerns were being downplayed because [Company] had told ground staff in ZZZ to load/unload at a faster than normal rate and were counting on the work to be completed half the time normally allocated for unloading/loading and would not have any duty issues. I felt pressured by the demand being put on me to perform at a faster pace than usual having just voiced my concern of duty limitations. Upon completing the loading of Flight XXXZ in ZZZ; we had 6 minutes before Max Wheels Up Time of XI:51 before our FDP (Flight Duty Period) terminated at XJ:30 for a 49 minute scheduled block time to get back to ZZZ1. I called Dispatch at XI:45 to notify them that it was not realistic to legally complete this flight segment. I was told that if I took off at XJ:00 that would be legal. I stated that myself and Second in Command were not comfortable with what Dispatch was doing. I was accused of delaying the flight for voicing this concern of legality and that if I didn't take off; myself and fellow crew member would be stranded in ZZZ with no immediate company assistance to get home. I was then told I would be extended without consent and I asked Dispatch to clarify. And was then given the option to extend our Flight Duty Period for up to 2 hours because of Unforeseen Operational Circumstances. Flight XXXZ had no unforecasted weather; no ATC delays; or equipment malfunction but I agreed only to extend because I did not want to get stranded and just wanted to be done and over with the day because of all the previous mechanical discrepancies and delays in the earlier flights that had occurred over the past 9+ hours.




Synopsis: Captain reported that crew duty period was involuntarily extended under false pretenses and crew complied under threat of being left at departure airport with no company assistance to return to home base.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During power up; right engine slow to respond; but engine produced normal full power within 5 seconds. We elected to continue as normal engine parameters were observed. The plane operated as normal until cruise climb power was applied. When the props were brought back to 2450 RPM; the right engine began to vibrate severely. I pushed the props full forward and the vibration stopped. I then attempted applying a cruise climb RPM setting three more times with the same results. After a quick discussion; [name] and I elected to [notify ATC] for priority and return to ZZZ. We received vectors for the visual approach to RWY XXR. During short final; the right engine began to slowly surge and lost 150 RPM at a time commanded. This happened twice before landing. We then taxied into the ramp with a fire rescue escort and had no trouble with the right engine while on the ground. Fuel flow throughout the entire flight was normal and steady for all stages of flight. Unknown cause.




Synopsis: A Cessna pilot reported experiencing a significant in flight vibration in the right engine; which warranted an immediate return to the departed airport.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Second aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was coming into land on Runway 4L in BOS. A Gulfstream was ahead of me and was landing 4R.  While landing 4L; I noticed the Gulfstream approach my runway and I was expecting him to hold short of Runway 4L on Runway 33R per ATC instructions.  As I touched down on Runway 4L; I saw him taxi slightly onto my runway so I applied heavy brake pressure to stop quickly at the same time Boston Tower was ordering the Gulfstream to STOP!  I stopped around Taxiway Quebec short of the intersecting Runway 33L.  I exited Runway 4L on Runway 33L and then made a turn onto Taxiway November and taxied to the ramp via taxiway Bravo and Echo.  Taxi-in and parking was normal.




Synopsis: An ERJ-170 landed on BOS Runway 4L and braked aggressively as another aircraft exited Runway 4R and began to enter 4L after being told to hold short.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Aircraft X departed en route to ZZZ. The new airspace design has departures routed over GRD then on course and climbing to 16;000 feet from ZJX to ZTL due to the BANKR STAR into KCLT. The BANKR STAR was specifically designed with a waypoint that is 'at or above 17;000'. This combined with the KCAE departures route over GRD procedurally separates these two commonly used routes. ZTL's Airspace and Procedures office decided to disregard the new airspace design and did not put it in the Letter of Agreement between ZTL and ZJX to require this altitude and routing.Aircraft X had to be stopped off at 16;000 feet and vectored away from multiple KCLT arrival aircraft. The Letter of Agreement between ZTL and ZJX should be changed to require KCAE departures to climb to 16;000 feet or requested altitude whichever is lower and routed over GRD then on course.




Synopsis: ZTL Center Controller reported their airspace office omitted a procedure in the Letter of Agreement to separate aircraft procedurally causing the Controller to have to assign altitude restrictions and vector for separation unnecessarily.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HPN.Tower, NY
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D HPN
ATC / advisory: Tower HPN
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft Z landed Runway 16; but failed to exit at Taxiway C due to a flat tire. Runway 16 was closed due to a disabled aircraft. Aircraft X was holding short of Runway 16 for an IFR departure. Aircraft X advised that they could depart Runway 29 at intersection A. Aircraft X was taxied to Runway 29 intersection A. Aircraft X was departed from Runway 29 intersection A IFR. At the same moment; N90/LGA sector gave Aircraft Y an IFR visual approach to Runway 11 without coordination. I gave traffic advisories and turned Aircraft Y away from the airport immediately. Aircraft X was switched to N90/LGA sector.Increased staffing numbers so Local (Tower) Control does not have to be combined with CIG (to facilitate training on Ground Control and training on Clearance Delivery and Flight Data); TMC (for the purposes of the NTML); and Cab Coordinator (a position that on the record does not exist; but was necessary due to the TFR that was in effect for VIP movement and coordinating aircraft priority handling).N90/LGA sector coordinate all non-standard and non-advertised approaches to the airport because the IFR visual approach given to Aircraft Y was not coordinated.The creation of a Local/Tower assist position so that the position can be staffed in cases of operation complexity.The creation of a cab coordinator position to facilitate inter-facility coordinations for non-standard operations; traffic metering initiatives; and emergency coordinations for emergency events within the airport environment.A Class C Airspace to address the entry of VFR aircraft into HPN's multi-use airport and airspace that routinely services scheduled and non-scheduled IFR; VFR; and SVFR aircraft of all types including: several airline companies; numerous high-performance corporate jet aircraft; high-performance turbo-prop and prop with turbines (corporate and general aviation); and incompatible slow-flying single engine general aviation aircraft (private pilot and flight schools) on a daily basis.




Synopsis: HPN Tower Controller reported that TRACON handed off an IFR aircraft on approach without coordination; resulting in a traffic conflict.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: SVFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Propeller
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine over speed. RPM jumped to between 3;200-3;300 RPM. Reduced throttle to keep RPM within limits and speed decayed 35-40 knots. Requested vectors to nearest field. Diverted to the airport and landed safely. Suspect propellor governor failure. Aircraft awaiting maintenance evaluation.




Synopsis: C182 pilot at 5;500 feet experiences a propeller governor failure and engine overspeed. The throttle is reduced to maintain RPM limits and the flight diverts to a suitable airport; as insufficient power is available.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E JST
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X inbound to PIT from southeast already had checked in. Frequencies were combined and Aircraft Y was departing airspace to the north. Aircraft Y was already handed off to YNG Approach and requested a lower altitude. Aircraft Y was issued 3;000 and I immediately coordinated with YNG. While on the line I missed the partial read back of what turned out to by Aircraft X. I noticed Aircraft X descending and asked to confirm assigned altitude. Aircraft responded 3;000. Aircraft was still inside JST Approach Control airspace and our MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) in the area is 3;400. Aircraft was descending through 3;300 and about 1 mile from PIT. I took no further action.Hearback/readback prior to coordination with adjacent Approach Control. I should have stopped aircraft descent.




Synopsis: PIT TRACON Controller reported missing a read back resulting in an aircraft flying below the MVA.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight planning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Yesterday; after commuting in and reporting for my first trip since last Spring; I realized after the fact; that I inadvertently missed the temperature screening point in ZZZ.  I did however; before leaving my house to make my commute; self-screen and observed a temperature of 97.4 degrees at about XA:00 PST; date.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported failing to get temperature taken at screening point.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Service/Access Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the post-flight; the ground crew found the large access panel behind the right main landing gear hanging open. Inspection revealed that although the panel and hinges were undamaged; the composite fairing aft of the panel had several small holes where the attached support rod had made minor impact with the surface.The aircraft was taken out of service by [Company] Maintenance.The cause is unknown. However; due to the pristine condition of the panel; I believe it was unlikely that it opened until after landing. In order to cause the damage that it did; the prop rod had to bounce off the ground at significant speed; however.This aircraft was brand new. This panel only accesses the standby hydraulic pump. It is very unlikely that it needed to be opened since aircraft delivery. Is it possible that the 8 large adjustable latches were badly rigged from the factory; and the flex of the fuselage on landing allowed it to fall open?


Second narrative: Normal flight and landing. During post flight of leg one of a turn; ground crew found access panel behind right main landing gear was open. Inspection revealed panel and hinges undamaged; but composite fairing behind panel had several small holes where support arm had apparently had minor contact with surface. Aircraft taken out of service by [Station] Maintenance.Cause is unknown. Panel closed and latched on preflight; and one latch closed even with door open.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported that after landing; a major access panel beneath the aircraft was found open. Damage found to composite fairing aft of access panel.