elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cruising at FL360 to FLL our aircraft was abeam ORM (Ormond Beach VORTAC) when we encountered moderate turbulence associated with a downdraft. Aircraft was in IMC conditions with no convective activity near aircraft on radar display. I was the Pilot Flying; Captain was the Pilot Monitoring. After moderate turbulence commenced the aircraft began descending at a rate up to -1500 FPM and airspeed began to rapidly increase. Captain notified ATC and reported our inability to maintain altitude. The autopilot failed to keep up with the turbulence and attitude; while descending through 35500 I communicated the indications and disconnected automation to regain control of the aircraft. I smoothly corrected the attitude and airspeed as we exited the turbulence and downdraft. Automation was reengaged as we climbed back to FL360 from roughly 35250. No airframe limits were exceeded. Captain reported return to FL360 with ATC and encountering moderate turbulence with the associated loss of altitude. Syllabus events involving reaction to turbulence and change in attitudes/airspeeds during recurrent training prepared me to recognize and react quickly to this event.


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


Synopsis: Flight crew reported encountering severe turbulence and a downdraft causing excursion from assigned altitude.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ADS.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ADS
ATC / advisory: Tower ADS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Once again; someone at D10 Approach Control is removing my data blocks without my approval.  Did not advise Management because: 1. They were not here.  2.  I have told them in the past and apparently they have done nothing about it.  Management here is not open to anything bad; anything critical of the bigger facilities; or anything that causes them to do any work.  This is my only way of notifying someone outside of this building and getting this issue on record.Please do something about the person(s) at D10 before an incident occurs; this is a safety (traffic call) issue; and wake-up my Management because this is easily solved.  I will continue to report these until I realize nothing is going to be done; but believe me when there is an RA or NMAC or crash; the press will find out and D10 will have to take the fall because I'm not; I've told the Union and Management and you. This situation has happened at least 6 times.




Synopsis: ADS Tower Controller reports of missing data blocks that are being removed against his wishes.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On take off roll the Captain airspeed read zero. He gave me the aircraft at 300 feet. At 800 feet he started to work the abnormal checklist.




Synopsis: A B767 Captain's airspeed failed during the takeoff roll; so the First Officer was given the aircraft at 300 feet while the Captain worked the checklist.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flight Attendant (FA) A called the flight deck to advise Passenger X; seated in X5; was experiencing a skin irritation/allergy that may have been due to the cleaning solutions/disinfectant used on the aircraft interior. Passenger asked if Benadryl cream was available. A FA had a sealed hydrocortisone packet which was given to them by Operations; but to ensure proper action we requested a call into our medical partner to secure authorization going forward.Captain initiated a Medical patch via Dispatch and relayed the passenger information and asked about best first aid; if any; to provide. Medical recommended Benadryl/Diphenhydramine which is available in the EMK. (Note; both an ampule as well as oral tablet forms of Benadryl are present in the EMK.) Medical felt that would address the passenger discomfort and requested further contact if the situation deteriorated.While completing the Medical call; a passenger seated next to Passenger X offered some Benadryl hand cream which appeared to resolve the issue. As such no further action by our flight attendants was carried out other than filling out the medical report. The EMK was not opened nor were onboard medical professionals requested. During that process FA A learned the original name she provided the cockpit was erroneous as she assumed the person in seat X5 was the person listed in her PNR. Conversation with Passenger X revealed she was booked in X2 and moved and once notified the Captain relayed the updated name information to Dispatch for the reports.Flight continued to ZZZ without further incident.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a passenger may have had an allergic reaction to the sanitizing agent used on the aircraft.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RDU.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON RDU
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Part 91 flight [from] RDU. After the handoff from the Tower my copilot contacted the Departure Control and after a couple of vectors the controller instructed to proceed to 'AIGAR' Then my SIC read back 'AIGAR' and we agreed to proceed to IGARY which was a fix on the FPL. Then the controller gave us the hand off to the next sector. After a few minutes the next controller asked us to which fix we were proceeding and we reported to IGARY as previously instructed; then he asked which SID we were flying and I reported ROZBO3. ATC probably realized we were going to a fix that was farther than they expected; even if on the same bearing and route; and gave us a clearance to proceed to CHS; then IGARY; then flight plan route. The controller didn't mention any problem and didn't pass a phone number but as professional pilots we discussed this matter and we agreed that most probably the previous controller pronounced in the wrong way an intersection that was on the SID; specifically EAGER; that should be pronounced 'IGAR' and not 'AIGR'. This was a particular case with two intersections on the same route; bearing and similar phonetics leaded to a misunderstanding. I think that in this case ATC should spell the name of the fix before giving a quick hand off; just to make sure the aircraft is proceeding to the assigned fix.




Synopsis: Air taxi pilot reported receiving a vector clearance to a fix on the filed flight plan when ATC meant for the vector to be to a similar-sounding fix on the SID.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Incursion Runway
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Tower issued instructions to 'taxi to Runway XX via alpha.' There is no taxiway for Runway XX so I had to back taxi on YY and upon entering the runway the Tower asked if I could take an immediate departure and I shortened my back taxi and complied because an [aircraft] was on a 2 mile dog leg final for Runway XX. After I was airborne the Tower told me that my instructions were not for me to enter the runway to back taxi. The instructions as I understood them were for me to back taxi on the runway for Runway XX.

Callback: Reporter indicated that after departure; the Tower reminded the pilot that a clearance to taxi to a runway is not a clearance to enter any runway. Since there is no taxiway from the ramp to the departure end of indicated runway; and taxiway Alpha is very short and only provides access to the opposite end of the indicated runway; the report now believes that the intent was to taxi up to and hold short and wait for clearance to back taxi to the departure end of the runway.



Synopsis: The pilot of a C182 attempted to back taxi to the departure end of a runway that is not serviced by a taxiway when he misunderstood the intention of the ATC clearance.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Eagle (F-15)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the pilot not flying on a flight to BOS. Autopilot was engaged; we were level at FL270 and on our filed flight path with Washington Center. ATC called traffic above us and to our 1 to 2 o'clock; a military tanker. Shortly after the ATC call we received a TCAS RA to climb. There was no TCAS TA initially. The RA was indicating to our 1 o'clock and -1;400 and climbing. The Captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and climbed the aircraft. We were clear of the conflict at FL280 and the Captain leveled the aircraft. As soon as the frequency was clear; I advised ATC of our TCAS RA and our resulting climb. ATC then advised us of two F-15's climbing below us to FL260. We figured the F-15's were the trigger for our RA. We returned to FL270 and shortly after ATC cleared us to continue our climb towards our final altitude. I talked to both flight attendants and was assured all crew and passengers were OK in the cabin. We continued to BOS with no further events. It seems the F-15's were performing a rapid climb to FL260; especially since we never received a TA only a RA. I don't see any logical reason to allow this type of climb by the F-15's to an altitude so close to ours and within an airspace containing us as well as several other airliners and aircraft.




Synopsis: Air Carrier level at FL270 responded to a TCAS RA reportedly initiated by a flight of fast climbing military jets.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CVG.Airport, KY
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: The right main landing gear extended indicator was not working properly; it was extremely dim and intermittent. I spoke to Maintenance expecting it was just a light bulb problem and that it could easily be re-lamped; the mechanic revamped it however now it wasn't just extremely dim only one side was lit as the indicator is dual lit for redundancy in the system. I said I was not ok with the repair and said clearly this is deeper than a bulb issue; the mechanic then requested his lead come to the aircraft. The lead arrived and quickly; without thought; stated we will defer it. I immediately protested that I was not willing to accept the aircraft even if it was a legal deferral which it is not. The lead then began attempting to defer the indication under backlighting and instrument lighting which is not appropriate for a landing gear extension indication. I called dispatch and requested to speak to the DO (Director of Operations); they said he was not available and put a duty pilot on the phone I again stated I needed to speak to a DO he asked what the issue was I told him and he decided I needed to speak to someone with authority. At this point Maintenance Control was patched in and stated unequivocally that the landing gear indication could not be deferred and they would make all necessary repairs. Shortly thereafter I received a call from [name removed] agreeing whole that this was not deferrable and this was unacceptable. Upon further review and research I found 2 Flight Crew reports from this week that stated a go-around due to a faulty right main landing gear indication was performed. I then retrieved the aircraft maintenance logbook and quickly found the write up for the indicator and noted that it stated that the indicator was repaired. When a crew member requests to speak to a DO he should not be denied. A duty pilot is not a replacement for a Director of Operations. The current state of this airline is chaotic and understaffed they have little to no regard for safety. The primary goal is to push and safety only gets in the way. The ground crews continually attempt to pressure flight crews to leave on time regardless of the state of the aircraft and I am certain other mistakes are being made. I believe there will be an accident in the very near future if this company is allowed to continue to operate in this manner.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported main landing gear extended indicator not functioning correctly.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
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: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft inbound parked and chocked; when hot coffee poured out of front galley almost on co-worker. Instructed Flight Attendant that was improper procedure and Flight Attendant admitted to pouring out coffee. Went back downstairs to readjust chock and additional coffee and water were poured again without regard for safety.




Synopsis: Ramp Agent reported after flight arrival at gate; Flight Attendant poured hot coffee down galley drain; narrowly missing Ground Personnel.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in the climb regime; we were initially in VNAV mode at FL380. We experienced some turbulence; therefore; I; being the Pilot Flying; changed the mode to Vertical Speed (VS) to increase the pitch in hopes of leaving the rough air. During the climb in VS mode; I diverted my attention to the pages regarding SJC; since I'd never been there. At the same time; the First Officer was inputting [computer] data. In other words; neither pilot was monitoring the aircraft's operation. The airspeed decelerated to just above the amber airspeed warning. I immediately changed the VS pitch to much lower angle by disconnecting the autopilot; leveling the pitch attitude and even descended from the climb through the horizon to a momentary descent to increase airspeed.  No alert or warning was experienced and no inquiry from ATC. The remainder of the flight was non-eventful.In order to prevent this situation from occurring in the future; I believe one pilot should have the responsibility of monitoring the aircraft at all times while the other pilot is involved in any duties outside of flying the aircraft. Neither pilot should ever be performing non-flying [or] administrative actions at the same time. The aircrew should voice the transfer of control prior to performing any non-flying actions.  Also; I suggest the VS mode of accelerating or decelerating should be the LAST mode selected since it provides no protection of pitch control.




Synopsis: A B737-700 Captain reported noticing aircraft speed had slowed to just above the airspeed warning area during climb in Vertical Speed mode at FL380 when the flight crew was distracted.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying operating the ZZZ flight. On short final; we received a sink rate aural alert. My First Officer called continue; I agreed; and we continued. It happened around 100-200 feet. We never observed more than 1000 fpm on the VSI; and the PAPI indicated 2 white and 2 red and the landing was made safely in the touchdown zone. Once the runway was assured; I elected to nose down slightly coming over the threshold to give myself some more room to get the airplane safely to the ground with the given conditions. Gusty winds; and bumpy conditions made for a more difficult approach; but at no point did it seem unsafe to either one of us.After landing in ZZZ; left hand brake temperatures were relatively high upon exiting the runway and entering taxiway A. We landed Runway XXL. Visual approach; winds 250@18G30kts. Once on taxiway; left hand outboard brake temp indicated around 380C and the inboard was around 340C; temperatures still climbing. Quick decision making and thinking; I as the Captain decided to notify Ground Control that our brake temps were too high to park at the gate; and that we would like to continue taxiing around the airport to get them to cool off enough to allow us to park safely. A few moments later; temps were above 400C and climbing; and we got the BRK OVERHEAT amber EICAS message. Called for the checklist; and complied. Basically; do not set the parking brake. The highest temp seen was 495C where it stopped climbing and finally started trending back down. I elected to taxi single engine; and only use the right hand brakes (which were under 300C the entire time) in order to get the brakes to cool off and to prevent an unsafe condition at the gate with hot brakes and the possibility of having a brake fire. Once cooled off below 300C we parked at the gate; and the message had cleared prior from the EICAS.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported GPWS alert on approach along with high brake temps after landing.
Date: 202109
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Collapsible Scooter / Wheelchair - Lithium Battery Not Removed per FAA requirement.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Personnel reported Lithium Ion powered mobility device battery was not configured for air transport.