elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight Attendant refused to sit in assigned jumpseat; said she didn't want to face passengers; chose to sit it in aft facing jumpseat for taxi takeoff and landing. I tried to explain that you have to sit in assigned seat and why. After landing I explained I'd have to do a report; she started screaming and talking over me that I should go home and if this bothered me I should see a doctor for help. Several times I tried to explain to no avail. Flight Attendant also wore headsets for takeoff and landing. This Flight Attendant needs training to know why it's important to sit in assigned jump seats.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported another flight attendant did not sit in the assigned jumpseat.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 4
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was being vectored for the ILS at ZZZ when I noticed on right downwind I could see the airport well even with the haze. I reported this to approach and requested the Visual Approach to [Runway] XX. Controller vectored me to heading 90 degrees for traffic then cleared me for the Visual [Runway] XX. I started the turn for a better angle at base and reported to Tower I was inbound on the visual [Runway] XX. They cleared me to land but I noticed after all that; I no longer could see the runway. I did have good VFR for terrain clearance however. I had the localizer dialed in so began tracking it in until I could see the runway which did quickly occur. My altitude had slipped though and set off towers alarm and they called. I did have VFR clearance for terrain and there appeared to be no real problem. Slantwise visibility was degraded no doubt and long range visibility did suffer. I should have just stuck with the ILS.




Synopsis: Pilot reported they lost sight of the runway due to haze and received a Low Altitude Alert from Tower.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Fighting Falcon F16
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] tracking a 202 course toward the Rosewood (ROD) VOR. Cleveland Center had cleared us to climb and maintain FL 300. We were climbing approximately 800 FPM with the autopilot on. Between FL 250 and 260; we received a TCAS TA for a target at our 1 o'clock and slightly above. We were attempting establish visual contact when we received a 3000 FPM 'Climb! Climb!' resolution advisory (RA) for a second target 100 feet below us with little lateral separation. I commanded 'pull-up' as the First Officer (FO) disconnected the autopilot and smartly complied with the RA. The RA cleared within ten seconds. We did not receive a 'clear of conflict' TCAS message. The targets simply disappeared from the TCAS display. I notified Cleveland Center that we had complied with a TCAS RA and were continuing to FL300. The Center controller apologized; stating that the conflicting traffic was a flight of F-16 fighters leveling-off at FL 250; and that he wasn't sure what had happened. Upon deplaning several passengers volunteered that they had seen 'jets' through their windows at the time of the incident. The first target was 200 feet above us; the second was 100 feet below. The FO remarked later that he had been uncomfortable complying with the 'Climb!' RA since he knew there was an aircraft above us. I assured him that he had taken the correct course of action because the lower aircraft was closer to us. Given the characteristics of the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon; I speculate that while we were unable to establish visual contact with them; THEY probably saw US. Conflict resulted from either a miscalculation by ATC or the military traffic's failure to level at their assigned altitude. I don't believe there is much we could have done to prevent this.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain climbing to FL300 experiences a TCAS RA requiring a 3;000 FPM climb rate which the flying First Officer complies with. ATC advises that the traffic was two F-16's but with no explanation for the conflict.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: ATC informed us that our filed direct routing was not appropriate-we needed to file a STAR. We advised Dispatch and they changed our flight plan to show an RNAV STAR-arrival. The only problem was this change increased our fuel burn by about 3;200 LBS. We had to get more fuel. When I queried our union safety reps about this they informed me that this kind of filing is common practice by the company so that the flight plans would show lower fuel required even though they know ATC will not issue the direct routings. This can set a flight crew up for being very short on fuel and produce a dangerous and unsafe condition. Dispatch needs to file some kind of arrival that can realistically be expected. And the excuse of 'we don't know which arrival will be assigned.....' is not acceptable. They know which arrival will PROBABLY be assigned and should use it. File a realistic STAR that should be expected. With the company's flight history they absolutely do have the knowledge to know which arrival is likely to be assigned. They absolutely know the direct routings will NOT be assigned and should not use them.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B767-300ER flight crew reported their airline was filing and flight planning for direct route arrival instead of the STAR arrivals common for all arrivals at major airports; thus allowing Dispatch with lower than predictably required fuel loads since the direct routes cut off many miles and assume going from the last fix directly 'to' the airport vice flying the arrivals which; in this case; required substantially greater route miles plus low altitude maneuvering to land to the east; the same direction from which they were arriving. When the appropriate route was planned and filed the fuel burn increased by about 3;200 LBS.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had taken over the position which was running multiple sectors combined. This is an unusual configuration. I have heard that we are using this for social distancing because of COVID-19. Because of the range covered I had to use my mid settings; adjusted for the altitude. Aircraft X was following a slower company aircraft at FL340. I asked Aircraft X if he would like to change altitudes or slow down. The pilot said he would like to climb and so I climbed the aircraft to FL360. When I went to switch the aircraft to the adjacent Center I realized that I had not coordinated with the sector above me. I then made sure that the sector above me was aware of Aircraft X and switched him. Usually when the area is in the mid configuration the airspace includes the above sector. I speculate that this is why I assumed that I had FL360 in my sector when; in fact; I did not.Standardized reminders on or near the scope would be helpful when we are forced into unusual combinations.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported clearing an aircraft to an altitude that was not in his sector; citing an unusual configuration due to special COVID-19 social distancing procedures.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch; Descent; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
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 Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After rotation; there was an intense smell of fumes (dirty sock smell) on the flight deck. It was minimized around the time we climbed through 14000 ft. The odor was still present but very faint. It gave me a headache and throat irritation. When we began descending through 14000 ft down; the fumes returned. The fumes became more intense when I advanced the thrust levers [to] level out at an assigned altitude of 12000 ft. I donned my oxygen mask and continued the descent. The Captain donned his mask a few minutes later and we used the masks for the rest of the flight until landing. The Captain removed his after we had exited the runway. I continued to wear mine until we arrived at the gate. Maintenance was called and informed of the situation before we left the aircraft.The company [should] find out the cause of these fume events.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported intense 'dirty socks' odor immediately after takeoff; which eventually dissipated; but returned during descent.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: S56 refused to allow the aircraft into their airspace IFR without a 15 minute delay. The TBM was flight planned to land U42. Pilot asked for descent to MIA to cancel IFR. I descended aircraft to 130. After querying the pilot of the weather; I determined he would not be able to cancel IFR or stay out of S56 airspace on his assigned route. I assigned heading 245 after YMONT Intersection and lost aircraft on RADAR just after aircraft left YMONT. Only legal clearance at this time was direct FFU; the only NAVAID within use limitations. Direct FFU would however take the aircraft into S56 airspace. I left aircraft on 245 heading; not knowing if heading would clear terrain. I climbed the aircraft to 140. Aircraft was on RADAR vectors and possibly headed into a 141 MIA area for about 3 minutes. Couldn't turn aircraft for terrain and S56 airspace and couldn't climb him above 140 for 150 traffic. I think S56 needs to proceduralize SLC arrivals so they can accommodate U42 traffic.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller described a possible below MIA event when S56 imposed a 15 minute airspace entry delay; the reporter suggesting S56 proceduralize routing procedures to U42 to avoid this type of event.
Date: 201701
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: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were pushing off the gate with a tail swing behind [the adjacent] gate into the ramp area. I did not notice anything out of the ordinary during the pushback. We set brakes and started Number 2 engine. During Number 1 engine start; I was told by the ground crew to shut down engines. I inquired as to why and he said our aircraft contacted the EMB-175 aircraft on [the adjacent] gate. The pilot from that airplane ran out on the ramp and notified our push crew of this fact. I shutdown the engines and asked both Ground and Ramp for permission to tug back into our gate. We advised ramp to also have maintenance meet us at the gate.The aircraft damage to our right winglet occurred because the push crew failed to properly monitor the safe clearance of our wings from the surrounding area. The flight crew could not see anything as we were pushing backwards. The push crew needs to be trained again on the proper method to safely push an aircraft and for the wing monitors to actually look at the wings during the entire pushback.


Second narrative: As we started our Number 1 engine the First Officer from the aircraft on the next gate signaled to us from the ramp to hold our position then passed word through the tug driver that the airplanes had hit.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported their aircraft's right winglet struck an EMB-175 at the adjacent gate during pushback.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Instructed to slow from 210 KIAS to 180 to the FAF. Captain configured and FO ran the landing checklist. When 'flaps 25' was called; there was no further flap movement (flaps were 20 and gear was down). Although the flap handle was in the flaps 25 detent; the flap indicator was stuck on flaps 20-21 and an EICAS 'trailing edge flaps disagree' appeared. The Captain executed a go around and took command of the radio communication while the QRH 'trailing edge flap disagree' was completed.  Flaps were extended to 30 per the QRH procedure. A normal landing was executed.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reports a trailing edge flaps disagree EICAS message when the flaps are selected to 25. A go around is initiated and the QRH is consulted resulting in a flaps 30 normal landing.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
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: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [En route; we] experienced 'Smoke in the cockpit'.  We were at cruise at FL240 more than half way through our flight. There was a strange odor followed by smoke emitted from the gaspers. Once that was observed we quickly donned our O2 masks and established communication. I pulled power and immediately started slowing for a descent. [The other pilot] started the QRH and notified FA (Flight Attendant) to be seated. As [he] was performing the QRH I informed ATC that we needed to descend to 10000 ft and started the descent 2000 FPM with speed brakes deployed. Once descent was started ATC asked the reason and I stated 'Smoke in cockpit'. ATC was then told to standby. The smoke eventually dispersed and masks were removed a few minutes later once pressurization was verified good. [The other pilot] completed the QRH and diversion to closest airport was requested. Vectors were given to [the closest alternate]. We taxied to the taxiway where [Airport Rescue and Firefighting] inspected the outside of the airplane. We then followed them to the gate and deplaned normally. Communication with FA did occur and she discussed a 'haze' in the cabin but no smoke. So the cabin masks were not deployed. Smell and visible smoke. Passengers did report hearing weird unusual noises around rows 8-9.Pack 2 was MEL'd and we believe Pack 1 burnt up because there was no real airflow after the smoke and it started getting warm in the plane. Even upon shutdown you could tell the pack wasn't running because it was quiet.Masks deployed; descent initiated; QRH ran; diversion completed. ATC directed and assisted the safe descent and diversion.The crew performed all procedures appropriately and within a timely manner. One item to note is that during training there is no discussion of turning hot mic off when O2 mask is on. Because during communication with FA it was hard to communicate until we turned hot mic off.




Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew member reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing smoke in the cockpit; probably from a malfunctioning air conditioning pack.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Night
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Learjet 45
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [ARTCC sector] continues to hand us two or more aircraft on conflicting courses at the same altitude. This has been going on for over 20 years! Tonight they handed me two aircraft (Aircraft X and Aircraft Y) at flight level 410 that were going to lose separation at approximately 30 miles inside my airspace. Aircraft Y was behind and south and 30 knots faster than Aircraft X that was converging from the north. I called [ARTCC Sector] a couple time to get him to turn Aircraft Y. He didn't answer at first. Finally after establishing communications with [ARTCC sector] I instructed him to turn Aircraft Y 30 degrees to the left to go behind Aircraft X. The aircraft passed 15 miles inside my airspace 11 miles behind. We would have definitely lost separation if I had not instructed the [ARTCC sector] controller to turn the second aircraft. It very well might have been a near miss! Aircraft Y thankfully lost about 30 knots in his airspeed as he turned north; into the wind. The wind was from the north at 60 knots. If not for the wind the aircraft would have needed an even more drastic turn to achieve separation! As I looked at the [ARTCC sector] from my radar scope it appeared that these were the Only 2 aircraft in his airspace!ARTCC management needs to take immediate action to fix a safety problem that has been going on for over 20 years!




Synopsis: Controller was being handed off two aircraft on converging headings at the same altitude. In the controller's opinion it was an imminent situation. The controller called the adjacent sector and instructed them to issue a heading to one of the aircraft to ensure lateral separation in the receiving controller's airspace. The reporter states this is a common situation between these two sectors.