elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were cleared to a point on the approach plate that did not have the same name as the FMS routing causing confusion as to where we were cleared to.We did not have an event as such; but the arrival procedures for the VOR DME is confusing and maybe someone can make it better. Our routing takes us on the FMS to: DXXXX; DXXX; CFXX; FF16.  DXXX which = IAF D15.0 on the approach plate.  DXXX = IF D11.0 on the approach plate.  CFXX = D9.0 on the approach plate.  FF16 which is correct on the approach plate as FF16.  Why can't the approach plate and the FMS routing fixes be the same for these points?  The same problem is on the departure plates.




Synopsis: A B737-800 Captain expressed confusion with respect to the FMS database identifiers versus the approach chart identifiers of the same locations of fixes; on a tailored VOR/DME approach.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Chicago Sector G76 called to APPREQ an A319 at FL360; IAFDOF at FL370 as he was requesting FL380 but had crossing traffic at both FL360 and FL380. G76 Controller PVDed the Data Block to me. I approved the IAFDOF; but noticed there was no flight plan for the A319 in my URET aircraft list. When this bug occurs; normally the flight plan populates the aircraft list when the Data Block is put into hand off mode. However; this time the aircraft flight plan didn't enter my URET list until after I had accepted the aircraft hand off. There was no way for me to perform a proper traffic search without a flight plan for that aircraft in my URET aircraft list; yet I had to accept a hand off before the flight plan populated the list. URET bugs need to be fixed. This as well as other bugs in URET have existed for years. Since my understanding is that the EDST in ERAM is the same program code as URET; this means that even with ERAM these bugs will exist.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller voiced concern regarding URET system with regard to populating the aircraft list with appropriate information.
Date: 201504
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other training
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This is to follow up on a report regarding the handhelds and emergency procedures (EP).As I noted before while on a flight with the POSSIBILITY of having an emergency due to what was going on at the time the crew; including the trainer and trainees onboard; role-played an emergency landing with the handhelds. All crewmembers had significant trouble locating the emergency procedures chapter in the handheld. One handheld froze up and needed to be rebooted; most had trouble finding it in the manual and all had trouble reading it due to very small print. Yesterday in recurrent training class NO ONE in the class had EP's bookmarked. We all had to be shown how to bookmark and what was important to bookmark. All had to be reminded that if there is a manual revision the bookmarks would be wiped out and would need to be reinstalled. On my last 3 day trip I tested every crew member; non-rev crewmembers; and a crew in the hotel van to see how long it took them to find the EP's in case of an emergency landing. The average was 9 minutes. No one had them bookmarked. A few did not have their handhelds on by the time we were in the air (thinking they did not have to turn them on until in flight). This in my opinion could be a serious problem in a real emergency. Obviously more training on how to bookmark and what to bookmark needs to be done.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported training for their new hand held computers appeared to be inadequate for dealing with emergencies.
Date: 202001
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff a strong odor of fumes entered the cabin; I notified the Captain of the fumes immediately; the fumes cause my eyes and nose to burn; as well as a bad metallic taste in my mouth causing my mouth to go dry. I became lightheaded; dizzy and had a foggy cognitive ability increasing my chances of making a mistake. The Captain advised ATC and we returned to ZZZ where Crash Fire Rescue and paramedics met the flight.The company and the aircraft manufacturers need to be held accountable for these fume events. They are happening more frequently. Better maintenance practices and checks need to be done; as well as using higher quality parts to make sure that the cabin bleed air is not contaminated with toxic fumes endangering the health of the crew and passengers.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a fume event during climb that resulted in a diversion.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Other
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were told that the rocket launch had been scrubbed and that we were going to 'do it again tomorrow'. A few minutes later; multiple aircraft reported seeing the rocket airborne. I reported the event to my supervisor who questioned me because the rocket had been scrubbed. Supervisor called up front; where they confirmed it was scrubbed. Shortly afterwards; we learned that the rocket had launched and we were to continue launch day procedures. Communication needs to be improved.




Synopsis: ARTCC Controller reported of a rocket launch they thought had been cancelled. Moments later pilots reported seeing a rocket airborne. Controller reported this to the Front Line Manager.
Date: 201810
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: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Must secure Dangerous Goods with 15 bags. Instead the ramp secured the Dangerous Goods with 14 bags and Aircraft on Ground.




Synopsis: Ground personnel reported ramp personnel incorrectly loaded Dangerous Goods.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During our return trip to our base from the Medical Center we had a near mid-air collision that required evasive action on our part...Approach Control warned us of an unidentified aircraft; but before she could say more; the TCAD went off showing aircraft just off our 9 o'clock position; 100 plus feet above us. Simultaneously; I looked and saw two white lights at what looked like less than a mile abeam heading right for us. I started a descending right turn and told Approach Control what I was doing and what just happened. She said she had no idea of who the aircraft was. The aircraft appeared to make no course change or altitude change. My Nurse thought it was a helicopter. My Medic up front thought he heard the TCAD say; 'Traffic less than one mile.' I thanked the Controller for the heads up; returned to my altitude and landed uneventfully. I...contacted [the State] and there were no State Police aircraft in the area but [they said] it might have been a [Company] Air Ambulance [helicopter]... I [contacted the Company] pilot and asked him if it was him. He stated that it was and his TCAD was fed from ATC and stated he was no closer than two miles according to his TCAD. I ended the conversation at that point.There was no doubt this was less than one mile to me and my entire crew. My crew remained very professional and reacted appropriately to the ATC warning and the TCAD warning with immediate visual scanning in the appropriate direction. ATC did an incredible job looking out for us like always and that is why I prefer to flight follow when ever possible. It seemed the other aircraft was not looking out the window at all. I had all my night lights on plus my high visibility strobe lights; which makes [the aircraft] difficult to miss. Not sure what the other aircraft was doing; but see and avoid was not one of the tasks.




Synopsis: EC-135 pilot on night flight took evasive action to avoid another helicopter that was reported by ATC and detected by helicopter's TCAD.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CCR.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: F/A 18 Hornet/Super Hornet
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D CCR
ATC / advisory: Tower CCR
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SUU South Assist called CCR FD/CD with coordination on transition; flight of two F-18 (hornets); 7 NE of CCR airport; Southwestbound 1500 feet MSL Local Controller 1 overheard coordination and immediately issued traffic to Aircraft X on patrol 4NE; northeast bound. By this time the F-18s were 5NE and turning westbound at 260 Knot groundspeed. Aircraft X observed traffic and immediately broke out to north. SUU called back to advise that they were trying to turn the F-18s to the south; but had lost contact. At this time they were clear to the west and no factor. Closest point to CCR airport was 2N at 1400 feet MSL.Not knowing what was transpiring at SUU; would like to suggest earlier coordination. Putting them on CCR frequency is probably not an option because of the brief time in our airspace.  This appeared to be a military training flight following the river westbound. This is not a common occurrency; but if there are to be more of this type; it definately has the potential for conflict or collision in the busy airspace just north on our runway 19 final.




Synopsis: CCR Tower Controller reports of two fast moving military aircraft that are not on Tower frequency; but have been pointed out. Local Control is working a helicopter in close proximity and the helicopter deviates off course from the two military aircraft. SUU Controller advised they were trying to get the military aircraft to turn south but had lost radio contact with them.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GFK.Airport, ND
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing; Final Approach
Airspace: Class D GFK
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: C210 entered VFR from southwest of GFK. C210 was sequenced to follow a C172 on base for Runway 35L and then cleared to land. At that point I turned to watch the Local Control 2 Controller. A little while later I heard the Local Control 1 Controller initiate a go around with C210 and then 5-10 seconds later I heard him re issue the go around instruction multiple times and then instruct the aircraft on the runway C172 to start departure roll. During these transmissions C210 reported 'bingo fuel' which I believe meant he was low on fuel; he then reported the C172 in sight and continued to land despite the instructions of the Local Control 1 Controller. As C210 landed; I would estimate the lateral distance between C210 and the C172 on departure roll to be 500-800 FT with both aircraft on the runway simultaneously. When C210 touched down he applied braking power and appeared to be turning off the runway at A3. A short time later I observed C210 with a stalled engine stopped on the runway and it also appeared he had a flat tire I then called the Local FBO and they brought out a tug to pull him into the apron. The aircraft was removed from the runway and normal operations resumed. I believe this event happened as a result of the pilot of C210 not advising the Tower of his fuel situation on initial contact. The Local Control 1 Controller sequenced C210 to follow the C172 in a timely manner. The Local Control 1 Controller also issued a go-around with adequate time and altitude for C210 to initiate a go-around safely and in a timely manner. If C210 would have made any statement about his fuel situation after the initial go around instruction the Local Controller could have cancelled the departure clearance of C172 and turned him off the runway or told the C172 to start takeoff roll to ensure the separation would be adequate for C210 arrival. C210 in my opinion ignored the instructions of the Local Control 1 Controller because he was low on fuel and didn't want to admit it and created a very dangerous situation. Recommendation; encouraging pilots to advise ATC when they may be in a low fuel situation.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: GFK Controller voiced concern regarding the reluctance of some pilots to advise ATC of their minimum fuel state; chronicling a recent example of a loss of separation event caused by this pilot failure.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Stab trim runaway at 8500 feet. First Officer (FO) was flying; autopilot on; aircraft configuration was clean and we were steady state at 240-250 knots.I heard the 'stab in motion' aural go off for what I perceived as too long for normal operations; especially with the aircraft configuration.I assumed control of the aircraft and disconnected the stab trim. I perceived a nose down (yoke moving fwd) motion just prior to disconnecting the trim. I called for the memory items for stab trim runaway; and the QRH.The FO accomplished the required checklists. I had the aircraft and the radios. We [advised ATC]; requested an immediate return to [departure airport] and a descent. I was fighting a nose down trim condition which seemed best at around 230 knots. We got vectored for an approach and requested a long final. Somewhere in there the FO got the landing data and we determined we had sufficient runway available (155%). As the flaps came out; the nose down trim feel abated for the most part. We were fast at 1000 feet but I was able to get to ref 20 flaps plus a few by 500 feet. Uneventful landing ensued. WX was low ceilings; 3NM vis in mod rain; wind 90 degrees left wind; wet runway.We missed the thrust reversers. Probably did not run the landing checklist with all that was going on. When I pulled them on landing; I got the caution msgs; closed the reversers; armed the switches and then redeployed them without further incident. Still stopped with plenty of runway remaining.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported returning to departure airport after experiencing a stabilizer trim problem.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Park post-arrival
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other after flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon arrival in ZZZ all crew underwent temperature screening. We stood within a foot of the deplaning passengers in lines trying to get off (first problem). People taking our temperature ran thermometer all across our forehead and barely wiping thermometer with tiny wipe between temperature takings. They used the same (!!) tiny square of wipe to wipe it down between screenings until we complained. They then brought a new tiny disinfectant square to wipe thermometer with. Issues:1). No social distancing between passengers and crew upon deplaning.2) Thermometer was not disinfected between screenings basically rubbing the other guys' forehead germs onto the next.3) Do these infrared thermometers require physical contact with skin even? It appears the screeners have not been trained properly endangering our health.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported issues with COVID-19 screening procedures after a flight.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 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: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Inbound to ZZZ. Both First Officer and I [had] our iPads plugged using company cords. Neither iPad would charge. I am told they are trickle charges and low amperage. We fly three legs today and the company iPad batteries won't make it. Why is the company removing paper charts if we can't keep our iPads charged?




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported both flight deck iPads would not charge using company cords. Captain questions company decision to remove paper charts.