elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were at FL350 and 20-25 miles east of Tulsa. We had been mostly smooth but with some mountain wave activity. All of a sudden; we experienced severe turbulence that disconnected the auto pilot and increased our altitude by 500 feet. The flight envelope went from approximately 35 Kts spread to less than 10-15 Kts. Aircraft oversped by 10-15 Kts for a duration of 3-5 seconds; the aircraft attitude was controllable but not the altitude. We reported the encounter to ATC and told them about our altitude excursion. ATC thanked us for the report and asked us to descend back to FL350 when possible. After this episode; there was some intermittent moderate turbulence and were still getting mountain wave. We decided to descend to FL330 and the situation improved. Seconds after regaining aircraft control; I communicated with the purser and asked if there were any injuries to the crew or passengers. She said that there wasn't any because everyone was seated at the time. Prior to the event; I had made several announcements to the passengers stressing the importance of staying seated with seatbelts fastened. I was asked to do this by the purser also because the passengers were not abiding by it. Luckily; after my last announcement; they were all seated at the time of the turbulence encounter.I communicated with our dispatcher and after several ACARs messages back and forth; and consulting with my manuals; I determined that the encounter with the turbulence would be considered 'severe'. I made the appropriate entry in the aircraft maintenance log. Appears that it was caused by a frontal boundary. Either categorizable as wind shear or Clear Air Turbulence.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported encountering severe turbulence in the vicinity of TUL VOR at FL350.
Date: 201510
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Operations Manager
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I am [letting] you know what happened with the crew this morning.  They called into operations and asked them to call maintenance control for them.  They were told that we do not call maintenance for crews; they have to call their maintenance control and they will dispatch maintenance to the aircraft.  They refused to call their maintenance control and kept insisting we call for them.  I went onto the aircraft to explain this to the captain; he was on the telephone telling someone that we are terrible here and are only out to hurt them because we refuse to help him with what he needs.  That he will make sure something is done about that.  I waited until he got off the phone and I proceeded to let him know that our policy here is if he needs maintenance he needs to call his maintenance control for them to dispatch them out.  He told me he has been with his company for 30 years and has never seen such a blatant disrespect for the operation.  I apologized; but told him we had to follow procedure.  He said my apology did no good because the passengers were still the ones suffering because we couldn't do our jobs.  He said he would just sit there until something was done.  I had an assistant call maintenance just to see; and they said we are correct but whomever he was on the phone with had already called them and they were heading over.  They said they would also reiterate to him the policy here about maintenance being called.  After this was taken care of; he asked our pushback driver to be pushed back at a 90 degree angle.  I have instructed our pushback guys they are only to pushback straight to avoid aircraft damage.  The captain came across the radio in operations asking for me.  I spoke to him and he said we do not know how to do our jobs and he sits in a very high place and he will see to it that we get some training here or something is done.  I told him that I have instructed agents to only pushback straight.  He said I just want you to know I am recording this conversation.  I said ok.  He then again said he would be sending us a whole bunch of trainers because we did not know what we are doing.  I said ok thank you and have a great day.




Synopsis: Local contract maintenance office had difficulty convincing a crew of the local pushback and maintenance communication policies.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While checking on the progress of my flights; I noticed -Aircraft X was flying at FL330 instead of the planned FL250. I double checked my ACARS messages to make sure I had not missed anything from that flight and I had not. I ran numbers for the altitude change since it was an 8;000 ft altitude deviation. I sent the numbers through ACARS to the CA (Captain) notifying him that I saw the altitude change he had decided to make. The CA responded approximately 7 minutes later stating: 'Figured we start hi... Work our way dwn if needed...Any issues w/ZZZ and UN Gen Assembly...ie delays ... holding ... etc?' The CA never acknowledged the numbers with his time and initials. The CA never consulted with me prior to the flight departing or when he chose to make the altitude change to discuss whether this was a viable or safe option or to at least give me some kind of forewarning that he was planning to do that. Both the aircraft and dispatch manuals state that amendments are necessary for altitude changes of 4000 feet or more. A lack of communication from the flight crew with Dispatch also creates disruption of operational control; which is a safety risk. I sent a message to that CA a little while after I sent the numbers; stating: 'Also; in the future; please notify dispatch of your intent/desire to deviate from the filed plan. An 8;000ft altitude change is something we like to have a heads up about. Thanks.' I'm not sure what this CA thought about the situation because he chose not to discuss it with me. I understand they can run their own numbers and figure out if the deviation will work. However; it is important for communication to occur in all aspects of the flight; especially with the amount of safety concerns that could occur. I think really stressing to the pilots; while in training or through memos; whatever it takes; the importance of communicating with Dispatch could help prevent situations like this from occurring in the future. Complacency; especially in this field; can be a very dangerous thing.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that a Captain changed cruise altitude without notifying Dispatch.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: QXU Radar site has been turned off for many days. Aircraft X was conducting a photo mission VFR/040. He was constantly dropping into and out of radar contact. Aircraft Y was landing N66 and requesting lower to do a visual approach. I lost radar contact on Aircraft X when Aircraft Y was getting close. I told Aircraft Y about the general location of Aircraft X. I anticipated losing radar contact with Aircraft Y as well. He then canceled and went VFR the rest of the way.This is a very unsafe situation. QXU radar site must be turned back on!




Synopsis: ZBW Controller reports of a radar problem associated with the turning off of the radar site for a couple of days. He loses radar contact on an aircraft that he knows is close to another aircraft.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was flying VFR to a non towered airport. It was VFR but with a 6000 ft. overcast ceiling. I listened to the AWOS which was wind calm; 6000 overcast; and visibility 10 SM. When I was 10 miles out I made a radio call to let everyone know I was going to be entering a left downwind. I didn't hear anyone reply or make a radio call of their own. I turned base and made a radio call and still didn't hear anyone. Also; I didn't see anyone in any part of the traffic pattern for any runway. I turned the final; stabilized approach; and still did not hear nor see anyone in the area. Around the 2 mile final; I received a TA that showed the traffic was right under me. It showed the plane was 200 ft. below me and right in front of me as well as showed they were climbing. I instantly made a 30 degree turn to my right. About the time I rolled out of the turn; I looked to my left and saw the Piper Warrior off of my left-wing; same altitude. The Warrior didn't have any lights on nor was making any radio calls. When I landed I asked some of the people at the airport if they heard me talking; they did. The people at the airport did not hear the Warrior say anything.




Synopsis: A pilot reported a NMAC with another aircraft on final approach to a non towered airport.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Passenger Boarding
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Please know that the incident I am referring to is relayed third hand. On the afternoon of [date]. I received an email from a Customer Service agent in ZZZZ asking for assistance regarding a passenger's missing scooter-hoverboard. Despite company regulations surrounding the hoverboards being specifically prohibited; I had no idea what a scooter-hoverboard was. ZZZ had the item on-handed as ZZZ prohibited the item to go to ZZZZ and removed it from the passengers possession. I went to where the item was stored and took pictures (attached). The passenger has stated multiple times that he removed the battery in ZZZ1 before the ZZZ1 team allowed him to board. The issue is that there is still some sort of power supply on the item; as it can be turned on; lights up; and appears to have some sort of indicator that shows a battery reading. With all of the changes in items that are allowed; not allowed; allowed in-cabin only; batteries removed; etc.; we had a gate crew and flight crew that allowed a hoverboard to be loaded in the pit; and the passenger to carry the battery in the cabin. Currently the [Company] website states that all hover boards are prohibited however; some internal Wing-tips instructions only refer to lithium batteries; which this item appeared not to have; apparently. We are now in the process of attempting to reunite this passenger with his hover board without much success; as no one appears to ship them because of the historical mishaps with their batteries.




Synopsis: Airline Ground Personnel reported Lithium Ion battery powered hoverboard transported as cargo on initial flight but not transferred to connecting flight due to confusing company policy regarding Lithium Ion battery powered devices.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While landing my aircraft experienced a nose landing gear failure during the rollout phase of landing. Prior to touchdown; the landing gear selector was selected to the down position and the three green down and locked landing gear indicator lights were on. The landing gear indicator lights were verified down prior to turning base; again on base; and finally on final. Nothing about the landing was abnormal. Once we smoothly touched down on the main landing gear; the nose landing gear smoothly lowered. Upon touching down; the nose landing gear collapsed. No injuries were sustained. Tower notified airport operations and the aircraft was removed from the runway.




Synopsis: PA28 instructor pilot reported the nose landing gear collapsed during landing.  No abnormalities were noted prior to touchdown.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MLE.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G MLE
ATC / advisory: CTAF MLE
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was ready for departure at MLE. After listening to AWOS I noted the wind was 028 at 3 KTS. Runway 12 is used for takeoff with wind below 5 KTS. At the same time I was tuned to UNICOM and heard no other traffic. While lining up on Runway 12; I made my intentions known on Unicom 123.0. Then I heard another aircraft state he was on roll out on Runway 30. I exited the runway and allowed this aircraft to exit (a low wing experimental). I cleared the runway and taxied to Runway 30 and departed.




Synopsis: A pilot at CTAF MLE taking Runway 12 for takeoff with 3 knots of wind exited the runway after another pilot reported landing Runway 30 when the preferred Runway with wind less than 5 knots is 12.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At TOD we received ACARS from Ops asking if we had sent a message about an emergency. We checked with the Flight Attendants (FAs) and they said all was normal; so we used ACARS to let Ops know we had no emergency. After landing we discovered we had to wait for a gate and the passengers had to wait for Customs and Border Patrol before deplaning. I called dispatch on SAT phone and zone on my cell phone. Neither of them knew of any issues other than ZZZ Center had been closed earlier and was causing delays. I relayed that information to the passengers and thanked them for their patience. After crossing 28R on the north side; we noticed a CBT and an airport vehicle who followed us to the gate. Eventually we got to [the] gate and door 1L was opened. We kept the seatbelt sign on and the door closed. We heard shouting and when we turned on the flight deck door access camera; we saw individual FAs and passengers being escorted off with their hands up. There were about 15-20 officers on the airplane with automatic weapons drawn. There were also officers standing behind concrete pillars on the ground with weapons drawn. An FBI agent came to the door eventually and she explained a call had been made to someone who said there were armed individuals on the plane who were going to take over. We expressed our dismay that we had no notification of an issue. Obviously; we should have been notified of the threat; and we would have followed appropriate procedures for a Level 4 threat. As we exited the passengers were still assembled in the concourse waiting to retrieve their bags. They and their children were obviously upset; but grateful they were OK.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being left out of critical communication from ground security forces.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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 Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X wanted flight following and initially contacted me around VDI at 024 feet going southbound. Shortly after calling radar contact the aircraft had VFR traffic at 024 his same altitude off his right side that I was not talking to and targets were merging. I called traffic and ultimately advised Aircraft X to descend immediately. The conflict was resolved.Aircraft X asked me later if I knew why he wasn't seeing the other aircraft on his ADS-B display in his cockpit and I was. Normally he says he sees other aircraft that have a transponder because they are relayed from radar sites to the ADS-B antennas and then relayed to his aircraft. He was in a known ADS-B coverage area as published by the FAA. I took his phone number down and told him I would try to find an answer. I talked to our tech people and they weren't aware of any ADS-B outages or radar outages at the time.The pilot said this happened one other time near SAV airport.Educate controllers and pilots about limitations of ADS-B and coverage limitations.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller reported a VFR aircraft conflict which was resolved; but the pilot of one aircraft wondered why they were not seeing aircraft on their ADS-B.