elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At approximately XX:45 on Gate X during the arrival of Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1; an aircraft maintenance truck drove through the OSZ (Operational Safety Zone) of Gate X as the aircraft was turning into the gate for arrival. The arrival ramp crew was in place to receive the aircraft; and was in fact about to begin marshaling in when the maintenance pick-up drove through the OSZ.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported observing a fuel truck drive through the Operational Safety Zone while an aircraft was taxiing into the gate.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
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: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was enroute when Flight Attendant notified the Captain that several passengers were not complying with crewmember instructions by refusing to correctly wear their face coverings in flight.  Numerous nearby passengers complained to the cabin crew and the cabin crew unsuccessfully tried to get the passengers to comply.  After multiple attempts all three passengers did not comply with Flight Attendant instructions.  The flight continued without further incident.Passengers were not taking Flight Attendant instructions seriously. Perhaps enacting more severe penalties for non compliance with current face covering policy would make passengers take the situation more seriously.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported several passengers were not complying with the face mask policy.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The door was opened for deplaning. Due to ramp procedures the stair truck rail cannot touch the aircraft; which leaves a gap so wide that a large man can fall through. Very dangerous.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reports that the portable stairs used to board her aircraft are unsafe due to a large gap between the railing and the aircraft.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working position 1 on Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Upon entering the plane I immediately noticed the typical smelly socks; wet dog smell in the cabin. The Captain was seated in first class along with the First Officer and I informed them that the cabin smells like we are experiencing a fume event. They said they smelt it also and that the smell will go away once we take flight and turn off the APU. I told them I would continue only if the smell does not get worse. I also notified my crew members of my past three fume events and told them that what they were smelling was caused by the APU. Suggestions: Making the company correct this problem since they are aware of it; which is endangering their employees' health and the customers we are responsible for.




Synopsis: A320 Flight Attendant reported 'smelly socks' odor during preflight and notifying the flight deck crew.
Date: 201903
Location: MMPR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMPR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were descending on the KEDIX 1B RNAV Approach just outside 'MUVBA' when we received a terrain warning. We were at an altitude of approximately 6000 FT; on profile; when we received the warning. As you can see from the chart there is a mountain directly under the area just prior to 'MUVBA'. It is my belief that this charted altitude of 5500 FT is too low in relation to the mountain below. It is going to be a problem for many aircraft coming into MMPR using the KEDIX 1B Arrival. Fortunately we were in VMC conditions but it would have been much more serious if we were in IMC or night conditions.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a GPWS terrain warning on approach while in VFR conditions.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other During Shift
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Aircraft X attempted to contact the Tower to receive an IFR Clearance. No response was received from me and he contacted FSS to get the clearance. Still no response from me and then Center attempted numerous times to contact me on the shout lines and as well on the phone. I did not respond for 35 minutes as I may have been asleep in the tower due to fatigue brought on by an impending cold. After I responded the aircraft received clearance and departed. The next aircraft that departed took a wrong turn on a taxiway and held short of the wrong runway. I feel as this was unrelated to the fatigue incident. [Recommendation:] identify when I am fatigued and not feeling well and take more breaks during the midshift to alleviate the issue.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported an aircraft and adjacent facilities could not make contact; possibly due to fatigue driven sleeping during a mid-shift.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Citation V was instructed to descend via the arrival except to maintain 9;000 for traffic. Aircraft Y was given traffic of the Citation V and eventually called the jet in-sight. The Citation V was given the prop traffic and never reported the prop in-sight. When the Citation V read back the descent instructions they were incorrect and I did not catch the incorrect readback. The last scan that I had of the 2 aircraft is that they were separated by 1;000 FT. The Citation V descended to 8;300; was only about 1 mile north of Aircraft Y and the Conflict Alert (CA) went off. I immediately asked the Citation V if they were level at 9;000 and they just read back their call sign. Then the Citation V keyed up again to advise me that they were indeed climbing from 8;300 to 9;000. A few miles later when I gave the Aircraft Y a frequency change to ZDC he advised me that the Citation V did not pass overhead at 1;000 FT; but at 300 FT. I advised Aircraft Y that we were looking into it. Upon review of the recordings is when I realized that I had missed the incorrect readback. Change the phraseology for the difference in altitude when an aircraft is on a 'descend via' clearance. It would be helpful if it were something more distinct and direct so that it would be less questionable. The current phraseology is questioned by many pilots of all calibers. Having something more blatant and less wordy might be better. Perhaps pilots could provide more direct feedback.




Synopsis: PCT Controller described an NMAC event acknowledging a failure to correct an incorrect readback. Controller listed the 'descend via' phraseology as problematic.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Ramp; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to construction in the southeast portion of the airport; I did not enter the ramp for [the] gate at the correct entry point.  Even though I thought I was intimately aware of the LGA environs; my expectation bias; compounded with non-standard taxi marking that made it appear that I was at the end of the taxiway; caused me to make a mistake.  The irony of this event is when we departed Runway 31 earlier; both of us noted the crazy construction and the potential for mistakes that could happen in the close quarters.  Prior to operating out of LGA for the first time in a long time; I reviewed the company notes/memos and our 10-7 pages.  Both of us had our taxi charts up.  When I noticed we were in the wrong position; I stopped the aircraft.  We coordinated with the Ramp Control and was safely marshaled out after we restarted our left engine.  Causes included expectation bias; poor taxiway markings; construction congestion. This was in daylight. Experienced crew.  While I take responsibility; better markings would have made the difference; especially since we are all not at the top of our game with the reduced flights.  Even though taxi configurations change during construction; this does not alleviate reasonable signage or markings.  It is the cost of doing the work.  I am sorry for the mistake.  However; if this is the worst thing I do----it has been a good career.  For me; it illustrated that I can always do better.


Second narrative: Taxied down wrong alley in LGA.Cause - Taxied down wrong alley in LGA; expectation bias combined with new construction and unfamiliar with temporary entry points.Suggestions - Just try to stay current with the extensive and dynamic new construction at LGA.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a ramp and taxiway incursion during arrival due to airport construction at LGA airport and subsequent temporary routing.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Normal ground ops and departure from ZZZ. MEL item lower recirc fan all other systems normal. After level off at FL330 entering ETOPS; PM noticed cabin altitude at 8600 ft.; steady increase at 100 ft./min. Cabin alt was amber; no other EICAS or cautions. Differential pressure was 6.5. Captain/Pilot Flying called Dispatch/ [Technical Operations Maintenance Control]; unable to rectify issue; Dispatch concur with air return. Relief pilot recalled to flight deck; Pilot Monitoring request clearance for return to ZZZ while [Relief Pilot] ran QRG divert checklist. Captain ran TEST checklist; briefed approach; flew normal landing.




Synopsis: Flight Crew reported loss of cabin pressurization control; resulting in an air turnback.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Advised pilot to 'descend via the KEPEC3 expect after CLARR maintain 130'. He read it back correctly but descended below the MISEN crossing restriction; which is FL240. Another Controller called me to let me know the low sector was open. When I noticed what he was talking about I questioned the pilot and he said he thought I gave him the descent clearance to 130. I checked the tapes and he read it back correctly. I normally do not give that clearance (descend via except) but I was in a briefing with the pilot's company and they said the pilots know what that clearance means. I will not give that clearance again.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller described an airspace infraction when traffic issued a 'descend via' clearance descended below a crossing altitude on the procedure.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The Honeywell EPIC is strange and difficult to understand. We were given direct to a fix. Put that fix in knowing that as the next (fly TO) fix in the FMS flight plan; the FMS would not go direct even though we pressed to direct key. In this situation it draws a line between your last fix and the TO fix and intercepts that line. It does not go direct to the fix you'd like. So after putting in the direct fix; we pressed direct TO the new fix 3 times before the plane flew direct to the new fix.PLEASE CHECK YOUR DATABASE FOR ALL THE PROBLEMS PEOPLE ARE HAVING WITH THE HONEYWELL PRIMUS EPIC (C680; FALCON 2000; GULFSTREAM 450/550).


Second narrative: [Report contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: A CE680 pilot described the difficulty activating a Honeywell Primus EPIC FMC DIRECT TO function after several DIRECT TO function button pushs were made.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp IAH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After de-icing we noticed a thick layer of clear ice remaining on the First Officer number 3 window. The flight attendants reported the same on the right side cabin windows. We asked the deice crew to return and remove all ice from the aircraft a second time. After we were told the post flight inspection was complete; I went back to the cabin to check as an added precaution. I found large patches of thick clear ice adhering to the upper surfaces of both wings; particularly thick at the root. I asked the crew to return and remove the remaining ice. After this step I found the roots clean but the outboard third of the left wing still encased in ice. After returning again they cleaned the wing. The Inspector was on frequency during this but was evidently not inspecting properly. The massive amount of ice missed by the ground crew was alarming. Their inexperience with deicing must have contributed. Why a more stringent inspection wasn't done is troubling. At least 8 or 9 aircraft moved through this process prior to us very quickly with presumably the same thick layer of ice from having sat at the gate through the previous evening's freezing rain. Our aircraft held up the deice line for 20 minutes or more I would assume. I also assume the previous aircraft were sent through and cleared with ice remaining on them. I am very upset about the danger these flight crews were unaware of. I'm not talking about an insignificant layer of frost. This was heavy and thick clear ice. Hopefully someone with authority noticed our logjam and discovered the error so subsequent aircraft were serviced safely.




Synopsis: A B737 which sat overnight in an ice storm was not properly de-iced and after the Inspector did not detect the omission; the flight remained in the de-ice area until the crew was sure all contaminants were removed.