elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After completing our ZZZ1 turn and landing in ZZZ the B FA and I headed to our next Gate where we were approached by a Supervisor who asked us if we had just arrived at [Gate] XX from ZZZ1 and when we confirmed we had; he asked how we were doing. We were confused by this question because we had been uniformed of any issues regarding our flight. Then he proceeded to tell us that there was an air quality issue with that aircraft. We were even more confused as to why we were not made aware of this issue and wanted confirmation or at least more information about what we were dealing with. He then left us and we began communication with CSS (Cabin Service System); and tried to contact a Supervisor. We then learned that it was in fact our aircraft; and they were now tail swapping it out of service. I am unclear on what we should be doing; if we should be concerned for our health; or be tested? I was under the impression that the Supervisor who first approached us would return with more information or at least confirm that it was our flight. I am not feeling well; but I am unsure now if I was already getting sick; or if it was caused or exasperated by this aircraft. I feel like we have been blindsided with some potentially health threatening news and left with no guidance.We need someone to be following up with us about what's going on and what the exact report entails so we can make an educated decision on how to proceed and weather to be tested or not.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight attendants reported an 'air quality' issue after deplaning the aircraft.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sail Plane
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Other Demo Flight
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During an airport open house event; a glider operated by [Pilot A] appeared to conduct aerobatic operations at a few thousand feet above the airport. The above named glider pilot was going to do a non-aerobatic glider demonstration flight as to those at the airport interested in glider flight. I had talked with [Pilot A] about his demonstration a couple hours before his flight and informed him of the weather conditions and other safety related items prior to his flight. I specifically informed him that the airspace was non-wavered and normal Part 91 flight rules applied. He verbal informed me that he would comply with those rules and regulations and that he would be responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft. I also have a voicemail recording of what his flight was going to be for this demonstration; which he said would start by being towed by a tow plane and then releasing from the tow plane and then doing two 180 degree turns directly over the runway at approximately 200 feet AGL with him slightly rocking his wings and then departing the area. When he did his flight he did not follow the flight that he informed me he would do. It appeared from ground level that after he released from the tow plane that he did a few loops and then descended to a low altitude and did two to three low level 180 degree passes over the runway and then landing again at the airport. He then reattached to the tow plane and departed the airport and left the vicinity of the area with the tow plane. I am not sure how to prevent the situation in the future; as the pilot had been instructed to not conduct any aerobatics or operate his aircraft in an unsafe manner.




Synopsis: Observer reported a glider pilot performed aerobatics during airport open house that were not authorized.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had a fume event on taxi out. Flight Attendant 1; 2; 4 and deadheading Flight Attendant 4 sitting at seat XX affected by fumes. I; the deadheading Flight Attendant 4; experienced lightheadedness; nausea; headache.


Second narrative: Flight Attendant 2 and Flight Attendant 4 informed me during flight of fume event prior takeoff. They did not think it was bad enough to report until they started feeling ill while working during the flight. Captain was immediately notified.


Synopsis: A319 flight attendant crew reported a fume event during cruise. Flight attendant crew received medical treatment at destination for physiological issues.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Requested digital ATIS 3 times; reply was 'not available'. We inquired on what runways were in use from Denver Center and they responded that they were landing north. The Pilot Flying loaded the Frnch 3 Arrival; ILS 35L. As we were descending via the Frnch 3 Arrival we were given the RNAV (RNP) Z 34R very late in the approach. I loaded the arrival into the FMC and made a mistake on the BOOBU transition. Caught it a few miles prior to HIMOM [and] quickly reentered the approach with the HIMOM transition. I grabbed HIMOM and put it at the top of the legs page. We did not notice the route discontinuity until we were right on top of HIMOM. We were fixing our mistake when ATC said fly heading I believe it was 170 maintain 10;000 feet. [I] reprogrammed [the] MCP and flew as directed. Then we were being vectored for the ILS visual to 34R; descend to 9000 feet; and shortly [thereafter] to 8000 feet. We were descending below 9000 when ATC said we were only cleared to 9000. The remainder of the approach and landing were uneventful.


Second narrative: We were cleared to 9000 feet and then 8000 feet. While intercepting the localizer at 8000 feet the controller said we were supposed to be at 9000 feet. We all agreed that we had been cleared to 8000 and nothing else was said by the Denver Approach Controller. We continued on the approach for a normal landing.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a track and altitude deviation occurred on arrival into DEN after receiving a very late clearance for the RNAV (RNP) Z Approach to 34R.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed Runway 1 on NATNL5 SID. Entered clouds at 400 feet. With no visual reference to avoid restricted airspace (the river) the left turn was made as soon as possible as the SID requires. Because our aircraft was light and OAT was low; we turned west to intercept the 328 deg radial prior to getting north of the VOR causing us to go past the 328 deg Radial. The SID should have a defined initial heading to fly to a RNAV fix.




Synopsis: CE560XLS Captain reports deviating west of the of the DCA 328 degree Radial on the NATNL5 departure due to entering IMC and turning to the west prior to the DCA VOR.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
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: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at FL410 we experienced a Cabin Altitude Warning horn and light. We donned O2 mask and established communication. We followed the QRC checklist and were able to get the cabin to stabilize at approximately 10;200 feet. We had no green ALT light on the pressurization control panel leading us to believe we had a dual controller failure. We followed the Emergency Descent QRH and advised ATC and Dispatch of our intentions. We chose [a nearby alternate] as a diversion point. The cabin began to be in the normal range as we went through about 15;000 feet. We landed without incident.


Second narrative: I think the Captain and I handled the situation in a cool and collected manner. After finishing the checklists; I mentioned that I should have waited for the Captain to respond with the appropriate calls per the checklist in use. I would read the item and response with the appropriate call. He agreed but said that given the nature of what was going on with us in a rapid descent; he felt it went well; and that the checklists were accomplished correctly and in the proper order. I would like to note also that once you are lead to an emergency descent; it never takes you back to the other checklist; the Cabin Altitude Warning; which has an important step of modulating the outflow valve to open by pattern altitude. The Captain mentioned that and we did modulate it on our own to full open by pattern altitude.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing loss of cabin pressure at FL410.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VNY.Tower, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was Working LC1; LC2; LC3 and LA1 combined due to low staffing today when the traffic level spiked all of a sudden and the frequency overlap overwhelmed me.  I departed a Bonanza or Baron off Runway 34 Left for a left downwind departure to the South and gave the typical restriction of at or below 2;500 feet MSL till South of airport.  I was attempting to call and get IFR releases for aircraft and SCT wasn't responding.  I was also working a few helicopters on a different frequency than the fix wings and was getting frustrated at the overlap.  My Frontline Manager (FLM) mentioned SCT is not going to give you a release because of Aircraft Y turning final for BUR.  I was getting mad that I had no help and was essentially working everything.  I noticed the Bonanza (or Baron) turning downwind towards Aircraft Y who was at about 3;700 feet MSL descending eastbound when I told the Bonanza (or Baron) to stop his climb which he leveled off at 2;300 feet MSL and passed under Aircraft Y.  Right before this time I was trying to ask (not directly) my FLM if I'm supposed to avoid Aircraft Y or was it normal operations.  About 5 minutes later the SCT FLM called over and wasn't happy that I let an aircraft fly under Aircraft Y.  My FLM called down to SCT probably on outside line and they talked.Allow Ground Control and LC3 (helo's) to be combined once again.  Over half of my workload and coordinations would have been simply eliminated.  There is a reason GC and HC was combined for 40 plus years at VNY.




Synopsis: VNY local controller working three locals combined describes a situation where he isn't sure what to do and asks for help but doesn't receive a timely answer. Aircraft in the pattern flies underneath a VIP aircraft which leads the TRACON call to complain about the operation.
Date: 201812
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Called for push about 4-5 minutes before scheduled departure time. Ramp told us to 'standby' as traffic was blocking us. We could see the reflection of an airplane in the window behind us. Someone appearing to be a Ramp Supervisor (had walkie talkie) was giving me a brake release hand signal. I ignored him. He then walked under the nose. The tug operator (female voice) asked me to release brakes. I replied we needed pushback clearance first. A male voice asked me to release brakes for on time. I told him our SOP requires pushback clearance and I cannot do that. Same guy walked out in front of nose was waving his hands; pointed at his watch; and gave me the brake release signal. I ignored him. [The other aircraft] finally taxied away; we were given push clearance; brakes released.What concerns me are several issues:1. We have tug operators asking crews to release brakes in violation of SOP on almost more legs than not (daily occurrence)...this is not an understatement. 2. [At] some stations; a Supervisor takes it up a notch and pressures ramp and flight crews to release brakes for the on time. 3. The company has such a laser focus on [departing on-time] they are pressuring front line employees to act against our values of safety and caring. Gate agents routinely try to close doors 15-20 min early even though we are missing passengers (happened today). Employees from several departments are scared of what will happen to them if they are blamed for a delay. An agent told me she feared for her job. This is not how you instill a safety culture.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported increased pressure from fellow employees to deviate from SOP to achieve an on-time departure.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Wake turbulence encounter on departure off of 25R LAX. A321 with 'sharklet' winglets was cleared for takeoff and we were given a line up and wait clearance. As soon as the A321 lifted off we were given take off clearance. We were heavy and flaps 1 which resulted in a long take off roll; FO was pilot flying. At approximately 400 ft AGL we encountered moderate to severe wake turbulence. The aircraft violently banked to the right 35-40 degrees and the FO was moving the control column with little command authority. After 2-3 seconds the FO was able to get the wings close to straight and level; but then the aircraft violently banked 35-40 degrees left and again 2-3 seconds to recover; finally it happened for a third time; to the right. The pitch of the aircraft varied between 5-20 degrees nose up during the event with the airspeed jumping +/- 30 kts. I instructed the FO to begin a turn to the left as the aircraft in front us was flying straight out. The entire event lasted no more than 10 seconds; I reported it to ATC; they responded 'roger' and we continued on the SID. Out of sterile I called the FA's and they said that some passengers had priceless looks on their faces; but everyone was safe and we continued uneventfully.Possibly in the future I'd consider a flaps 2 takeoff to try and lift off sooner; but in LAX you never know what type of aircraft you could be taking off behind. Anything heavier and we would have gotten wake turbulence separation. Anything smaller and it would have been a non-issue. I think ATC should re-revaluate the separation minimums behind B757s and A321s as that was a heavy aircraft that used a lot of runway and we in turn used a lot of runway as our takeoff weight was near 83;000 lbs at flaps 1. In our configuration it was almost impossible to climb above the preceding aircraft's wake; our only option was to slowly begin a turn to the left to offset ourselves.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported a 'moderate to severe' wake turbulence encounter shortly after takeoff from Runway 25R at LAX in trail of an A321.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Blocked and took off ten minutes later. [We] received new final weights 36 minutes after takeoff. Fuel increased from 172.0 to 174.5. SOB increased from 170 to 183. Could have been an 80;000 LB error!




Synopsis: B757 Captain reports receiving a revised weight and balance after takeoff indicating a 2500 pound fuel increase and 13 additional passengers.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IGM.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: CTAF IGM
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Inbound to IGM from ZZZ at 5;500 ft following the 68 Hwy; monitoring CTAF 122.8. Initial call was 25nm west of field; through Union Pass at 5;500 inbound to Kingman. Approx 4 min later heard a call that sounded like 'skydivers' '12;500 and below stay clear' 'name'? So questioned the CTAF if 'name' was near the Kingman area. The sectional chart provides no information of a drop zone west of Kingman. Our CTAF call questioning did not receive an answer. Approx 3 min later; on CTAF we hear a call that says 'What aircraft is flying by name?' We answer that we are 15 mi west of Kingman inbound. CTAF call says to remain 'north of the road'. There was a road below us; we were north of it and decided to remain north; if in fact this radio call was directed at us. We proceeded to make further calls inbound to IGM; and did not hear another call from the skydive ops. There were no NOTAMs describing a drop zone; nor was there a charted drop zone. Chart Supplement states parachute jumping; so we knew to be on the lookout. But possible we just picked up another areas radios.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor encountered possible skydiver activity.