elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Falcon 900
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The weather had deteriorated and SOIA was longer possible; so we went in trail unexpectedly. I was delay vectoring an A321. I flashed an automated point out to Toga. I saw that Toga had a departure that was level at 5;000 but would want to climb. I called Toga and said I'll stay at 8;000 or above with my aircraft. Toga approved this and steadied the point out. I turned the A321 to the ILS and stayed at 9;000. Toga began to climb his traffic. When I saw a F900 leave 7;000 I began to issue traffic to the A321. Separation was lost. I don't know why Toga would climb his aircraft into known traffic when he had just given away 8;000 to me. I believe Toga made a mistake and should be trained with techniques that will prevent a re-occurrence.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a loss of separation event when after proper coordination an adjacent controller climbed an aircraft into a confliction after acknowledging a point out on the subject aircraft.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A380
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working LC4 and an A380 was inbound to Runway XXL. We have written procedures for this arrival and I asked the FLM to clarify them so we were on the same page. He told me that the A380 would land Runway XXL; roll to the end; then back taxi down Runway XXR to MXX and then into Ramp XS. The briefing I got in team training stated that he should not stop because when he started up he would blow debris all over the runway and taxiways. That FLM took a break and FLM Number 2 was working TSS and a new LC3 sat down. FLM Number 2 placed the stop sign down in front of LC3 to stop his departures because the A380 would be taxiing on Runway XXR; so I thought.  The A380 rolled to the end and I coordinated on the landline with LC3 and ask him to use his runway to back taxi.  He said no; he was rolling one more departure. FLM Number 2 said to hold the A380 short of Runway XXR and switch his frequency to LC3. It appeared from my viewpoint that he was clear of Runway L. I thought the coordination was for me to turn the A380 onto Runway XXR. I'm really glad that I asked first; my long ATC experience kicking in. Too many cooks in the kitchen. Not only do we routinely deviate from a written procedure; each FLM/OM has a different interpretation. I can't count how many times one FLM tells you to do something and another FLM comes up behind you immediately tells you to do something different. I understand that in a busy facility we have to constantly change and adapt to situations; but this is getting crazy. Pick one person to be in charge! And heaven help you if you ask a question; you mean you can't read the FLM's mind? Totally unacceptable.




Synopsis: Tower Local Controller described a runway incursion event when the various operational instructions from Front Line Managers (FLM's) were not in sync.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On arrival at approximately 8;000 FT on a left downwind a level 2 HYD R QTY LO alert was displayed on the EAD. On the HYD synoptic page the fluid level was decreasing. Captain requested the QRH for LEVEL 2 HYD R QTY LO Decreasing or Abnormally High checklist to be completed and took control of the aircraft and radios. We requested and were granted radar vectors to assess the problem and complete the checklist. With guidance from the QRH; we extended the gear with use of the emergency gear release handle. All the gear deployed down and locked; and then we asked for radar vectors for landing using the longer of the two runways. We then requested CFR equipment; briefed the Lead Flight Attendant and prepared for landing. We were cleared for the visual approach and landed safely to a full stop. After coming to a full stop; the Captain set the parking brake and briefed passengers. CFR personnel reported to the crew a large puddle of fluid with an active leak below the aircraft. We had Maintenance come to the aircraft to raise the gear doors and install gear pins for a towed taxi to gate.




Synopsis: B717 First Officer reported right hydraulic system low fluid warning. Crew declared an emergency; ran the procedure; and landed normally.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: 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: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: As I was leaving the flight deck approximately 6.5 hours into the flight for my break the Captain informed me the Purser had spoken to him about mask usage on the flight deck.  Upon returning from my break I was informed there was further conversation with the flight attendants.  Not much detail was discussed as we began the preparation for descent into ZZZ.  I never spoke to any FAs about the issue nor did they speak to me about it.I am aware the Captain chose not to wear a mask for safety of flight reasons concerning his glasses while on the flight deck.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported the Captain chose not to wear a mask for safety of flight concerns while wearing glasses.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The NOTAM addressing an engine failure on takeoff from Runway 01C at IAD is creating a lot of confusion at best; and is being ignored by most crews (for somewhat valid reasons). In our case; fate intervened and we took off from Runway 30. First and foremost; why does this NOTAM only apply when Runway 01R is closed? Are the cranes moved when 01R is open? If Runway 01R is open (as was the case for us); should this procedure be followed or not? The NOTAM references a 'Flight Ops Bulletin'. What exactly is a 'Flight Ops Bulletin' (Our app contains Pilot Bulletins and Ops Alerts only)? Assuming this refers to a Pilot Bulletin; where is this mystery bulletin and how does one read it? The NOTAM states that all changes have been made in our flight planning software. As you can see below; this is simply not true. Lastly; previous crews have cited the B777 Flight Manual Note at the top of page and ignored this NOTAM. Please update IAD pilots as soon as possible. Thanks!




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported confusion with a NOTAM that addressed an engine failure procedure from Runway 01C at IAD.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other pushback
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to push; I briefed First Officer (FO) 'we will push from the gate take taxiway [A] to Runway 1L (anticipated runway for departure)'. I briefed NAV setup and VHF setup. However; did not brief specific pushback procedures from Gate. I heard FO call ATC and say 'do we need [a] push clearance from this gate?' They said no. (I queried this because I only heard one side of communication; because I was not wearing headset.)  I was kind of shocked because then I looked at 10-7; it says push call YES. So I said ok; no push call. As we pushed back WITHOUT a clearance; Push Crew said; 'are we clear on to taxiway?' I said let me ask. FO asked Ground; Ground said; 'You are pushing without a clearance! Don't do that; you need to call me first.' No traffic was around we did not block anyone; however; we had no push clearance. Both FO and I had not been to SFO in long time. This was definitely a contributing factor.


Second narrative: We pushed back from the Gate without clearance from Ground Control. I called Ramp for a push clearance and was told we did not need to contact them for a push clearance. I (we) took this for we were cleared to push. As we were pushing back; the Tug Driver asked if we were cleared onto A. I called Ground stating that we were pushing from the gate and needed clearance onto A. Ground stated to us that we were not supposed to start the push without clearance from them. We stopped the push and waited for further clearance.


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew who were unfamiliar with ramp pushback procedures at SFO; pushed back without clearance from Ground Control. The First Officer had asked ramp control if clearance was needed for pushback and was told 'no'. They confused what the Ramp Controller had said and pushed back without calling ground for clearance.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I performed a] precautionary landing in a cow pasture after experiencing a rough running engine. [I] checked the fuel for water after landing and for carburetor ice as requested by a Local Mechanic. [I] found the fuel selector switch positioned between both and right tank. [I am] not sure if this was done during the emergency check or before landing; since all was so quick because of patrol altitude of around 400 FT. [Note that] we have waivers to fly as low as 200 FT. [I] test ran the engine on the ground several minutes with no problems before taking off. [I then] landed at the nearest airport and topped off the fuel. The aircraft still had 10 plus gallons of fuel on board or over one hour of fuel at 8 gallon per hour burn. No damage to aircraft or property.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C172 performing pipeline inspections experienced a rough running engine and elected to land in a field. He later found that the fuel selector was in a position between both and right; but was unsure how this occurred. He ran up the engine and took off successfully.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D21.TRACON, MI
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Can you please explain why the Polar 4 Arrival into DTW does not have 4L on the chart? The Polar 3 did.




Synopsis: EMB-170 Program Manager questions why the POLAR 4 Arrival to DTW does not include Runways 4L and 22R as the POLAR 3 did.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When I was about 10 minutes from Fort Myers airspace; the radios began fading badly. I told the Controller; and he gave me 126.8 for Fort Myers if I lost him. I could barely hear him when he told me to switch over. When I tried to check in; ATC could not hear me. I could hear them; but they couldn't hear me. I continued to try to check in thinking when I got closer; they would be able to hear. Finally they told me to ident if I could hear them. I did; and we began communication that way. I was flying in severe clear night VFR; and I was headed into IMC on the east coast. I was about 90 NM out with 100+ to go. It did not seem safe to continue the flight into IMC without radio communication. I tried to call ATC and cancel the IFR flight plan so I could return to base. They still could not hear me. I continued on course hoping they would pick me up; but it never happened. I finally decided I could not continue for the safety of the flight. I turned around; dropped to the VFR altitude of 6;500; set a direct course to PIE; and changed the squawk code to 1200. The Controller came on and said she still considered me on an IFR flight plan; and that I needed to climb back to 7;000 and fly on course. As I continued toward PIE; another Controller came on; and said he understood I wanted to return to PIE. I pressed ident to acknowledge. He then told me to drop to 6;000; change my squawk code back to 4662; and they would take me back IFR. He stayed with me; handed me off to Tampa; and they handed me off to the tower at PIE. All communication was done with ident. I know I did not fly Assigned; Vectored; Expected; or Filed; but Safety of Flight dictated that I take other action. I communicated my intentions as best I could by squawking 1200; dropping to a VFR altitude; and setting a course back to base. Apparently one of the controllers got the message; and helped me out of a bad situation.




Synopsis: C172 pilot experiences radio failure on an IFR flight to RSW at night. Knowing that RSW is IMC the pilot elects to return to his departure airport in VMC.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ICT.Airport, KS
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C ICT
ATC / advisory: Ground ICT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Given taxi instructions to [Taxiway] B1. [Taxiway] B1 is referenced in HS1; [Taxiway] B1 is not designated on the 10-9 (airport diagram). B1 needs to be added to airport diagram.




Synopsis: First Officer reported charting error on page 10-9 on the Airport Diagram.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I discovered that the checklist provided by the Unmanned Arial System (UAS) mission was incomplete; but had been provided to controllers working the flight anyway. The flight had already gone through our airspace for the day and was expected back daily for five days; during daylight hours at FL270/280. The information provided by the UAS Mission Office and given to controllers working the flight did not include pilot contact information or lost link procedures; instead the following was listed: 1. Pilot Contact Info listed: Pilot contact information also put in Remarks section of filed flight plan.2. Lost Link Procedures Info listed in a reference document. The two most important pieces of information here were left out and I feel that it is very inadequate coordination. Unfortunately; due to training and inconsistent scheduling at the Mission Coordinator Desk (who is responsible for getting the correct information to the controllers on the floor); it seems to have slipped through the cracks. To further complicate the issue: I could not find the original email to see if any attachments were included that might provide more information. I suspect it may have been archived on another user's login and inaccessible from mine (another problem with OPSPROXY - see previous report regarding our facilities MOS and OPSPROXY). More importantly; when I tried to locate the Certificate of Authorization (COA) on our facilities computer; it was password protected. This means; neither the controllers working the flight; nor the MOS had access to the COAs associated with the flights: a. Pen and Ink Change and b. FAA Form 7711-1 COS along US Borders.I recommend ALL COAs pertaining to any UAS flight in ARTCC airspace must be made available to controllers and MOS at all times; without a password needed because controllers need quick easy access to information for these crucial missions. Mission Coordinators at ARTCC facilities should ensure all pilot contact information and lost link procedures are provided before a mission enters a facility's airspace and ensure it is easily accessible for controllers.




Synopsis: A Government UAV operated in US Domestic Airspace at FL270 and afterwords the controllers realized they were not provided with either the Certificate of Operation; Pilot Contact Information or Lost Link Procedures for that flight.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On initial climbout at 1;000 MSL our aircraft had a sudden decrease in RPM to 1;200 and began shaking violently. Instructor seized the controls and turned around to land on the opposite runway; immediately [alerting ATC]. Power was restored on the descent and aircraft stopped shaking. The landing was made on XXR with no other issues.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that the aircraft had a sudden drop in RPM after takeoff.