elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed OAK on the COAST RNAV Departure. I radar identified it and assigned an unrestricted climb to 10000 feet.  Then Aircraft Y departed SFO on the SSTIK departure. I radar identified it and climbed them to 4000 feet planning to crossover Aircraft X. At that time I noticed Aircraft X had turned south on his own out of 3000 feet putting him head on with Aircraft Y climbing through 2000 feet and rapidly merging. I immediately issued a right turn to Aircraft X heading 290 maintain 10000 feet. I advised Aircraft Y about Aircraft X and was able to get Visual Separation and assigned 3000 feet and a hard left turn to heading 230. As Aircraft Y started his left turn and dropped back to 3000 feet Aircraft Z departed Runway 28 at SFO climbing to 3000 feet. I radar Identified them and assigned maintain 3000 feet. I turned Aircraft Y right heading 260 and climbed them to 10000 feet and issued traffic about Aircraft Z. I issued traffic to Aircraft Z. I turned Aircraft Z left and gave a harder right turn to Aircraft Y but separation was lost. After all was settled and separation regained I issued a Brasher to Aircraft X.The Oakland departures have a turn depicted for the Loss of Communications. There have been numerous times when pilots misread the departure and turned. Usually it has been uneventful and we correct the situation and educate the pilot. This time was different. That south bound turn needs to be changed or removed from the departure; or depicted differently. I believe that is why Aircraft X turned south into a head on potentially mid-air situation.

Callback: The Controller states this is a somewhat regular mistake usually made by General Aviation aircraft.



Synopsis: NCT Departure Controller observed an aircraft fly the lost communication procedure for an RNAV departure which put it into confliction with other aircraft.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I recently was vectored within 3 miles of a 757 on landing at ATL while flying an A320. I questioned the spacing and was told this was the new normal. I called the Approach Facility and was told that the FAA has changed the definition of aircraft for wake turbulence. The Controller was surprised we didn't know about it as the Controller thought all the airlines were made aware.This is the FAA order:http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/7110.659a_wake_recat_order_final_format.pdfThe following paragraph from the FAA order needs to be changed to keep S-80/B-737/A-320 type aircraft away from 757 type aircraft. d. Category D Aircraft capable of a MTOW less than 300;000 LBS and a wingspan greater than 125 FT and less than or equal to 175 FT; or; aircraft capable of a MTOW greater than 41;000 LBS with a wingspan greater than 90 FT and less than or equal to 125 FT. This order should never been allowed to go into effect without feedback from 'users'. The FAA needs to change paragraph d. to remove the ability to mix 757 and 737 aircraft.




Synopsis: An A320 Captain noted that ATL TRACON vectored his aircraft 3 miles in trail of a B757 because a recent FAA Order 7110.669A change reduced separation for certain aircraft categories.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: I took over this flight from another shift.  Normally this flight is scheduled to operate ZZZZ-ZZZ; but due to ZZZ weather it was rescheduled to arrive ZZZ1.  Flight was sent with a redispatch and ETOPS alternates of BIKF/CYYT and no destination alternate for ZZZ1. While enroute and well past the EEP (ETOPS Entry Point); the crew sent an ACARS:What airport is defining ETOPS exit"I checked the flight plan and noticed the EXP1 (ETOPS Exit Point) was showing ZZZ1.  The EEP airport was correctly identified as EINN and the ETP (Equal Time Point) location seemed accurate when looking at the route.  I tried to figure out the reason for this; including creating dummy flight plans (non-redispatch; etc) and was unable to get a proper EXP.  I advised the crew the correct EXP defining airport was CYYR (using range rings to define) and that while the ETOPS Exit Point on the release was not correct; the critical fuel scenario based on the ETP between BIKF/CYYT seemed accurate. I asked a few peers to review this to make sure I wasn't missing something and they all agreed.  Another dispatcher found a similar issue on a similar routing of (Aircraft X ZZZZ-ZZZ1 on date).  I advised the Dispatcher on Duty and he contacted Name1 immediately.  Unfortunately; capturing line mode is not working for any flight right now."




Synopsis: Air carrier dispatcher was notified by flight crew of an error with the ETOPS flight plan during an Atlantic Crossing.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had descended the E145 to FL280 a few minutes later the Conflict Alert activated. I had assumed the E145 was inbound to ZZZ on the new arrival route that had just been implemented. However; the aircraft was moving to the south and head on with a B737 at FL290. Once I had realized the Conflict Alert was authentic; I told the E145 to expedite his descent and turned both aircraft 30 degrees right. At the same time; the B737 responded to a TCAS and climbed. As a result no text book definition of separation lost. I believe the cause of this situation is the prolonged levels time on position and of extensive workload; thence resulting in mental fatigue.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event claiming 'mental fatigue' was a contributing factor.
Date: 201808
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Flap Fairing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was doing the walk-around. I found that there was a red rag jammed into the drain holes of the left inboard flap track fairing. I called Operations from my phone while on the ramp and asked if they could send maintenance out to the aircraft as I had found a rag stuck into the flap track fairing. To me it looked like someone might had placed it there to see if it would stay on during flight; either the inbound or outbound. A mechanic came to the aircraft and removed the rag stating that they changed the #1 tire that night and to prevent water from dripping on them while changing the tire; they plugged the flap fairing drain holes with the rag. I would bet it's safe to say that this is NOT the correct procedure in the Aircraft maintenance manual. This rag most likely could have interfered with the flaps during retraction if the rag was to come loose during takeoff.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a rag was observed in a wing flap fairing during preflight.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon level off at FL380 engines went from climb power to idle power and ignition came on; then recovered to climb power and back to idle again before recovering to climb power; accelerating back to .82 Mach and stabilizing at cruise power.Don't know why. No icing; light turbulence.




Synopsis: A330 Captain reported upon reaching cruise altitude both engines rolled back to idle thrust twice before resuming normal operation.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had a conversation with members of ZZZ local management about P0's being changed to P2's after work has already started. Ref GPM 16.03 and PDPM 03.XX.X; both clearly state that a P0 item has to be worked in its entirety. The practice that has been occurring is during the night shift while P0's are being worked; while management has their XA00 meeting they (local management and Maintenance Control/Maintenance Operations Manager are changing P0's to P2's when it's evident that work being performed will result in the aircraft being out of service. I read both documents as saying that this practice is illegal and in my opinion very unsafe. Are they local management and Maintenance Control/Maintenance Operations Manager allowed to downgrade P0's to P2's after work has started and after work package lockout? That is my question. I have no recollection of exact aircraft and night of event occurrence. Just seeking clarity on this matter.




Synopsis: Lead Crew Chief questioned the validity of changing and down-grading priorities after work has begun.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MAF.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C MAF
ATC / advisory: Tower MAF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Recently we had a situation where two VFR pipeline aircraft entered our Charlie Surface area while the surface area was IFR. When questioned by the Supervisor the controller's response was that both pilots reported being VFR. Our district has determined that since both aircraft reported being VFR there was no problem with the operation. By this logic I could climb in my aircraft to 19;500 feet and there would be no problem because I am VFR. Simply put; this seems like a dangerous precedent to teach new controllers. What happens when the VFR pilot in an IFR surface area encounters inadvertent IMC and crashes because of it?I have been a controller and a pilot [for many years] and never in my experience has it been okay for an aircraft to operate in an IFR surface area without being either IFR; SVFR or VFR on Top. In this instance none of those conditions were met. I believe the District has made an error in interpolation; thank you for your time.




Synopsis: MAF Controller reported VFR aircraft were allowed to conduct operations in an IFR Class C airspace.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Brake System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Preparing Aircraft for Tow
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: In preparation to move B777-200 aircraft; I installed Steering Bypass Pin and noticed aircraft parking lights on; proceeded to remove chocks; visually checked area and noticed lavatory truck [still] attached to aircraft when Jet Bridge was coming off. The [aircraft] assessment form was not completed as we were waiting for the Lavatory Service truck to complete and move away and right wing man to arrive. Driver told me that aircraft just rolled back and to check and see if the Lavatory Service Technician was O.K.


Second narrative: I was assigned to ride brakes on a B777-200 aircraft parked on Gate. I performed procedures for towing and when the aircraft was fully captured by the Goldhofer [Tug]; I released aircraft brakes.


Synopsis: A B777-200 aircraft suddenly rolled backwards from a terminal gate during preparations for tow. A lavatory truck was still connected to the aircraft.
Date: 201406
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure; Physiological - Other; Distraction; Confusion; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was the 'B' Flight Attendant on flight. While secured in my jumpseat and cleared for takeoff; a passenger rushed back to alert me that a baby had gotten very sick and they needed help. I rushed to the baby and his mom. Vomit had covered the entire row; the baby; and his mother. Baby was screaming and coughing. We were due to takeoff at any moment; and I needed more time to assess this emergency. I rushed to the aft galley and called the 'A' on the interphone. I advised 'A' of the situation and asked her to call the pilots and tell them not to takeoff yet. Within several minutes; the 'C' came back and asked if I needed anything. I said I wasn't sure yet. The 'C' said this was not a medical emergency; and we needed to go. I said that the baby was very sick; was coughing; possibly choking; and that it was an emergency. I continued assisting the mother and baby; and without my knowledge the aircraft took off. I remained sitting on the aisle arm rest for the takeoff with the unbelted passengers. The aft galley was not secure as I was not given the opportunity to put my supplies away for takeoff. Better communication between crewmembers both during the emergency and after. There was no communication amongst the crew regarding this emergency for the duration (8 hours) of our duty day.




Synopsis: A B737-700 Flight Attendant was sitting on an arm rest during takeoff assisting a mother and ill infant. She unsuccessfully attempted to have the takeoff aborted so neither she nor her aft galley were prepared for takeoff.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CXO.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Aircraft: Embraer Legacy 600 (EMB135BJ)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During night IFR flight and arrival we were cleared for the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 32 into CXO. At about 500 AGL; after seeing the runway; without any warning; communication or request of my opinion; the Captain attempted to cancel IFR. I was caught by surprise and; as the pilot flying; continued to focus on the approach at hand. I told the Captain that the ceiling was too low to cancel; although we were in the clear and could see the runway. He continued to request to cancel IFR. Finally; just prior to touching down the request to cancel was received. We landed safely with no other issues.My belief is that the Captain was trying to do a favor for the aircraft behind us who was waiting to shoot the same approach. The tower at CXO was closed at the time and the aircraft behind us could not be cleared for the approach until we cancelled IFR. I also believe the Captain may have been a confused about the conditions under which we could cancel IFR. In this case the visibility was good but the ceiling too low. However; I verbally intervened but was more focused on flying the airplane. As a result I was left in the compromised position of either talking to him; talking on the radio or flying the aircraft. I elected to spend my energy flying and secondarily advising we should not cancel.I don't believe the Captain's actions were a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules as much as perhaps a lack of knowledge and understanding as to when we can and cannot-or should not-cancel IFR.




Synopsis: The First Officer (PF) of an Embraer Legacy 600 mildly rebuked his Captain for attempting to cancel their IFR flight plan shortly after breaking out of an overcast at approximately 500 AGL on an RNAV approach; citing a ceiling precluding VFR flight.