elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: According to the memo given to the work force the first fix given must be displayed on the radar scope or overhead charts. [Fix] is not; and I was too busy to amend his route on the ground. So I cleared 'as filed'This memo is dangerous; un-expeditious; and not efficient. It convolutes the Federal Aviation Administration Handbook (FAAH) 7110.65 and has made our job exponentially more difficult. Also they gave us nothing; no training on how to work with these new rules. They are misapplying the FAAH 7110.65 by inventing new rules on how non radar is supposed to be worked.




Synopsis: ZLC ARTCC Controller the facility issued a memo defining extra rules not contained in the Federal Aviation Administration Handbook (FAAH) 7110.65 handbook. The Controller did not comply with the local rules.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other All Phases
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the FWD cabin and Flight Attendant (FA) B was working the AFT. During the flight FA B approached the galley and states to me that she was going to give Passenger X a face mask warning; because he was having a hard time complying to keeping the mask over his nose and she asked on numerous occasions before pushback; taxing out to the runway; and during the flight to keep his mask over his nose. I called flight deck to inform the Captain what was about to happen. So FA B gave the written policy to Passenger X and he stated he didn't want to see it. FA B informs me what happened and I call the flight deck. I tell the Captain she gave the warning and Passenger X refuses to hear it. The Captain states we'll just call for supervisors to meet us at the gate. FA B and I both say 'okay.' I decide to do a walk through in the cabin and notice Passenger X has his mask on covering his nose and mouth. I inform FA B and the Captain. Captain states that's great; but so there's no further issues with Passenger X we'll still have the Supervisor meet us. I say 'fine.' I guess noticing that FA B and myself are talking to the Captain inflight; Passenger X states to FA B he now wants to read the policy. Once seeing the policy and reading it Passenger X states to FA B that he's sorry. FA B then calls the Captain to let him know Passenger X has a change of heart. Captain still states he'll have the Supervisor meet the aircraft at the gate. We say 'okay.' Once at the gate; I open the main door and the supervisors are there. They wait for Passenger X to deplane to talk to him. The supervisors also state they will inform his connecting flight.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger would not comply with face mask policy and was met at the arrival gate by supervisors.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Windshear
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We did a Go Around with a subsequent wind shear encounter due to the fact that you cannot deviate from the arrival and approach once you are below a certain altitude. With better ATC guidance; which we requested; we would have held or divert to the alternate airport. Having done the Go Around we got ATC clearance to fly to ZZZZ. We landed with low fuel indicated in both main tanks. We had 4K lbs on board.  We were a few hours late and did not have correct information to avoid the situation. It would be a good idea to carry more fuel than just what is required to satisfy max landing weight. The excess fuel can be burnt off in the holding pattern before landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a go-around and diversion resulted in landing with low fuel.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying my sailplane southbound; I encountered sink over ZZZ. ZZZ would not give me clearance to land; so I declared an emergency and landed without incident. There was nothing on my current sectional to indicate that I could not land at ZZZ. My ground crew arrived within an hour and we dismantled the sailplane and loaded it into the trailer. After signing about 3 forms; we departed.




Synopsis: Sailplane pilot encounters a downdraft over ZZZ airport and requests landing clearance; which is denied. An emergency is declared and a normal landing ensues.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
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 Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X requested direct to the Final Approach Fix from the Tower. The Tower approved it; then called to tell me what the Aircraft X was doing. I think I said 'He can't do that.' The aircraft was already below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude; no instructions on my part would have corrected it. The Aircraft X continued on the approach after the Final Approach Fix without incident.  Remind the pilot not to ask for short cuts on an instrument approach procedure. Remind the VFR controller not to make those kind of decisions without coordinating with center.




Synopsis: A HCF Approach Controller reported the Tower Controller approved an aircraft's request for direct to the Final Approach Fix which placed the aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan Variable Blade Mechanism
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: While replacing the Start Valve on the Right Engine; I noticed coked hydraulic fluid on the left-hand [side of engine] compressor case; specifically; a sticky jell-type fluid on the Variable Stator Vane (VSV) mechanism. I expressed concern to my co-worker; Lead Mechanic; and Management regarding the sticky substance on a moving part. We were all in agreement to call for a Line [Maintenance] Engineering Authorization. However; company Engineer X would not issue a Line Authorization because there was no Maintenance Manual (M/M) reference to deviate from. According to Engineer X; Engineering deviates from existing limits. Instead; he generated a Maintenance Item [not a deferred item] to clean the engine when it was removed.Engineer X was correct; that there were no references to address spilled fluids on the VSV mechanism. I; the Lead Mechanic; and Technical Services scoured the M/M and company Repair Documents and found no references. I cleared the item per Engineering and referenced the Maintenance Item. I still have concerns about spilled hydraulic fluid on moving parts. Furthermore; we inspected for a hydraulic leak and found none. We learned from the Lead Mechanic that the engine had a hydraulic leak in the pylon [that was] repaired several months earlier. Dispatching engines with visible evidence of hydraulic fluid; leads future mechanics to repeatedly inspect for a phantom leak. The scenario of spilled fluid on VSV mechanism in not covered in any company publication and Engineering would not take responsibility to create a course of action. [Recommend] to spell out in detail how to address coked hydraulic fluid on the moving parts of the engine. Also; create a Maintenance tracking note for coked hydraulic fluid; to flag previously repaired fluid leaks.




Synopsis: During a start valve replacement on a B767-200 aircraft; a Line Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) notices sticky; coked hydraulic fluid on the right engine's Variable Stator Vanes (VSV) mechanism. No company Repair Document or Maintenance Manual references available to address spilled fluid on VSV mechanisms.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were at the gate. Planned fuel was approximately 15;700 lbs. Fuel on board was  approximately 15;100; well above min fuel; however Captain had asked operations for fuel to be added; probably around XA:45. We were negative APU; therefore the cabin was hot and we needed to start an engine at the gate. At roughly XB:00; with boarding complete and paperwork handed out; we started engine 2 via ground cart. The tug was then attached (or maybe already had been attached); the beacon on; and we called for pushback. Ramp control asked us to hold the push for traffic in the alley behind.While making small-talk with the Captain; we both looked down and saw 'auto x-flow inhibit' status message. This is an indication we're being fueled. I looked back but could not see any fuel truck. The Captain asked the tug driver what was going on- he said we appeared to be being fueled (and expressed surprise as well). The Captain asked him to quickly get them to stop. He also radioed ops to tell them this was not authorized procedure. (We are not allowed to do hot refueling and any refueling requires the passenger door to be open of passengers are onboard). In the end; no harm no foul; but a safety concern and irresponsible behavior of the ground fueling crew; to not notice the airplane was ready to be pushed back and to violate safety protocol.Better communication; and observation by fueler. Although we'd asked for more fuel; we were still able and ready to go with what we had- with an engine running over his shoulder and the beacon on and the jet bridge retracted and the tug attached; there were multiple indications we were not configured for fueling.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported at the gate in DFW; with an engine running and the beacon on; a fuel truck hooked up and began to fuel the aircraft in violation of company policy.
Date: 201904
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: Ramp
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Even though the dangerous goods staged was biological and did not require a pilot notification. It still needs to be secure with 15 bags.




Synopsis: Ramp Supervisor reported Hazmat cargo was incorrectly configured for air transport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HNL.Airport, HI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HNL
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF; Tower HNL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X inbound over the freeway and aircraft was a rejecting to HNL in an emergency [condition] (smoke in cockpit). Tower supervisor was notified about Aircraft X returning as an emergency when aircraft was over Punchbowl (about 10-15 miles out from HNL airport). Tower crash phone was out of service. We've had at least 2 control sheets in CEDAR stating procedures if tower crash phone is out if there's an emergency the tower calls the ramp and relays emergency aircraft information and Ramp Control is to take appropriate action and notify the required agencies.Aircraft X inbound from Punchbowl emergency smoke in cockpit and tower supervisor calls the State ramp to pass on emergency information. Minutes later State ramp calls the tower back and asks the tower sup if the tower was going to activate the primary crash phone. The tower supervisor informs the State ramp that the tower crash phone is down and is per our procedures we are to call the State ramp during emergencies with information. The State ramp had absolutely no idea that the tower crash phone was out let alone they had no idea the procedures for the tower crash phone being out. By the time the emergency residing vehicles responded Aircraft X was short final. Thankfully smoke in cockpit didn't get worse. Somewhere along the line the ball was dropped. Procedures should not be expected to be in only Cedar; they should be briefed and eventually out in the SOP. My facility is horrible in keeping controllers informed of the latest procedures/publications. The tower supervisor did the best he could to take care of the situation however; the situation could be gone easily the other way and he would have been put in a really bad situation.




Synopsis: HCF Controller reported of an emergency inbound and the tower crash phone being out of service. Tower Supervisor called the Ramp Tower as per the SOP and made appropriate notifications. People at the Ramp Tower did not know what they were supposed to do. While aircraft was over the numbers the emergency equipment arrived.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
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; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Denver Center descended Aircraft X to 35;000 feet from 37;000 feet which put him in direct conflict with Aircraft Y. The two aircraft were on collision courses and would lose separation 2 miles inside our airspace. Denver Center transferred communications of both aircraft to Minneapolis Center. We had a problem with two pilots acting unprofessional and congesting our frequency with their personal conversation! We issued control instructions for Aircraft Y to turn 10 degrees right and then another 10 degrees right to achieve positive separation. Each time the clearance and the read back were blocked by two pilots having their personal conversation! Eventually; and with great patience and persistence; we were able to keep these two aircraft separated. This is unbelievable that this continues to happen on a daily basis that ZDV is not held accountable for putting two aircraft on collision courses without ensuring any form of separation. This is going to result in a catastrophic collision one day! Hold controllers; supervisors and managers accountable for individuals not doing their job which could lead to lives being lost.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reported Denver Center handed them off two aircraft that were on conflicting courses.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Un-forecast fog quickly developed during our approach into Airport ZZZ. The RVR at ZZZ was approximately 1;000 feet and holding steady. This Airbus is not authorized for autoland at ZZZ1 so our minimum visibility was 1800 RVR. Airport ZZZ1 was near minimums and just out of fuel range. Airport ZZZ2 was below minimums. The only airport within fuel range that had weather at or above minimums was Airport ZZZ3. ZZZ3 was long enough; wide enough; in the database; and we had charts. We notified dispatch we were going to divert to ZZZ3. Dispatch notified us that ZZZ3 is not approved for the Airbus and we would need to declare an emergency. We declared an emergency and landed at ZZZ3.


Second narrative: On final approach the weather at Airport ZZZ went below CAT 1 minimums and because of The Airbus limits we were not able to Autoland at ZZZ. Because of the un-forecast low visibility we needed to divert to a safe suitable airport. Airport ZZZ2 was also below minimums and we did not have adequate fuel to safely proceed to any other airports that were not in the area. We discussed our options with Dispatch and he suggested that we declare an emergency and divert to Airport ZZZ3 field. At the time of diversion ZZZ3 had weather that was above our landing minimums so we proceeded to ZZZ3 without incident.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reports arriving at their destination in their CAT I restricted aircraft; to find the weather below minimums along with all nearby alternates. A suitable field is identified by Dispatcher and advises it is not approved for the A320; but could be used if an emergency was declared. Flight crew declares an emergency and lands.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This event occurred while flying the ILS 6 / Circle to Land 1 approach at TEB. It was nighttime and the weather was VMC; winds were 320/18G33 with light to moderate turbulence reported on approach. Prior to circling; tower reported the traffic we were following and instructed us to square our turns to final (to increase our spacing). I initiated our circle; turning to the right approximately 60 degrees (more than would normally be required for the circle). As we descended and began to turn back to final; we received an Obstacle Alert from the aircraft warning system. I began to raise the nose and the alert ceased after just a few seconds. I completed the turn to final and we landed.Suggestions: More adequate spacing between us and the preceding aircraft would have negated the tower's instructions for us to alter our planned circling path. I believe by lengthening the circling path and the amount of turn required; the expected geometry changed. This added to the workload; making glide path management more difficult. Or we could have continued to fly the planned circling path and executed a go-around if inadequate spacing developed.


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


Synopsis: G550 flight crew reported receiving an obstacle alert from the GPWS on a night visual circling approach to TEB.