elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying a UAS on a photo mission near a major road early in the morning. UAS was being flown at an altitude of less than 200 feet and below the level of a nearby cell tower. Aircraft approached from out of the sun and came over the top of the UAS before pilot could take any evasive action. Pilot of the aircraft spotted the UAS and then began to circle around the UAS as if to spot what the UAS was taking pictures of. Eventually left the area.This is at least the second time a transient aircraft has come over to see what a UAS is doing and has hindered operations. In this particular case; the airplane appeared to be lower and closer to the UAS. Landing of the UAS was considered but not done because the airplane left as quickly as he showed up. In previous encounters; I have landed the UAS and waited for the aircraft to depart.




Synopsis: A commercial UAV operator reported that a fixed wing aircraft descended and circled near their drone; interrupting a photo shoot.
Date: 202012
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Today I used new temperature check system. Recommend adding hand sanitizer in this area as the touch pad is a touch point every employee must touch if the bar code doesn't work. Presently no hand sanitizer dispenser is available.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a hand sanitizing dispenser is necessary when the temperature check system with a touch pad is used.
Date: 201904
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As far as I know; there were no flight deck crew deviations from policy; procedure; or FAR. Enroute; the #1 Flight Attendant advised me that passenger was ill. He did not look well. He had an open wound on his leg that was dripping puss and pooling on the carpet below. She said passenger claimed to have just been treated for MRSA [Staphylococcus Infection] and cleared. An on board nurse offered the opinion he had active MRSA.  Using ACARS free text; Dispatch was notified of the ill passenger; puss pool; possible MRSA; and of the Biohazard situation. [Advised ATC] declared for traffic priority. Paramedics took passenger off the aircraft on an isle chair. I made an AML entry containing the following information. Passenger had an open leg wound which was dripping pus and pooling on the carpet below. Passenger claims to have been recently treated for MRSA and cleared. This is a Biohazard situation.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported Flight Attendant notification of passenger illness due to Staph infection. Flight crew requested Biohazard assistance on arrival.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LTAA.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center LTAA
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Just entering Turkish airspace north bound from Iraq our GPS was jammed for approximately 5 minutes. Aircraft navigation went to inertial and we lost ADS B Left. System returned to normal after jamming was stopped. Ground jamming of GPS system. Suggest military stop the jamming of GPS signals.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain flying over the Middle East reported the GPS signal was jammed.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Type 4 anti-ice of 100% was applied to aircraft prior to departure due to weather conditions. Taxi-out was uneventful. The weather conditions; runway conditions and anti-ice application required a power setting of maximum power. Clearance for take-off was received with a 30 second delay for an engine run-up. Following the engine run-up that was at 60% power; the throttles were advanced to take-off power. Approximately 3 seconds after takeoff power was set the #3 engine experienced a powerful compressor stall. The flight crew felt and heard a loud bang. The aircraft immediately started pulling to the right. A rejected takeoff was called for and initiated by the Captain. The Captain re-directed the aircraft back to the center of the runway and brought it to a stop on the runway. The crew informed the tower that they rejected the takeoff. The tower controller stated that they noticed two consecutive sizable bursts of flames from the wing motor followed by hearing the bang. The flight crew asked to have the Airport Fire and Rescue services to inspect the aircraft and runway for Foreign Object Debris. There was no abnormal engine indications or warnings before; during or after the Compressor Stall. The flight crew referenced the QRH; non-normal section for a compressor stall. The crew discussed with maintenance whether to taxi back under its own power or be towed back to park. The decision was made to taxi back using a low power setting. The Captain requested the Fire Rescue vehicles to follow the aircraft to park and monitor any abnormal conditions if they developed with the engine. Taxi back to parking was uneventful. Aircraft was shut down normally. It was later determined by maintenance that there was severe damage to numerous blades in the 2nd stage Turbine section of the Engine three.




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported a rejected takeoff due to a compressor stall on the number 3 engine. Maintenance inspection revealed severe damage to numerous turbine section blades.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An E135 was taxiing to Runway 35R via Hotel; Papa; Golf and Delta. I then amended his taxi instructions to hold short of Delta on Golf so I could put an aircraft with a flow time in front. The E135 was then told to taxi to Runway 35R via Delta; cross Runway 29. The E135 read back the instructions as told. The E135 did not make the turn on Delta and continued straight on Golf and attempted to cross Runway 35R. A B737 was rolling down the runway and as soon as I realized what had happened I instructed the E135 to STOP. I then asked the E135 if he had crossed the hold short line and he was not sure. Watch your taxiways and runways at all times. Even when pilots read back the correct instructions that does not mean they will follow through. As soon as you look away a pilot can make a mistake and turn the wrong way.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a probable runway incursion event when after responding correctly to a taxi clearance; the aircraft made a wrong turn and may have crossed the runway hold lines.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Crew taxied aircraft onto taxi lane via S1. Ramp personnel was standing approximately 300 feet in front of the aircraft interacting crew to taxi forward. I have walked over ramp personnel and instructed him to stop aircraft and suggested TOW aircraft to spot number 4. He was not very cooperative with my decision making but he stopped aircraft just off S2; so I have drove over spot 4 where ramp supervisor was standing. I have explained the situation to him same as what I explained to ramp person. There is FOD on ramp; containers are parked just off vehicle road lanes on ramp; new building walls constructed in direct path of aircraft tail section approximately 400 feet. Building walls were temporally supported by 4 [by] 4's. After talking to ramp supervisor aircraft was towed in spot number 4.Event occurred due to lack of ramp personnel training; argument is that they are treating [aircraft type A] as [aircraft type B]. [There] is a big difference on engine thrust and engine location. The containers should not be position at just inside of vehicle road lanes. This engine will lift this containers and make them airborne. There was good possibility that building walls will collapse due to fact crew will have to boost number 1 engine to make sharp 90 degrees turn to taxi in spot number 4. Please advise ramp personnel not to marshal [aircraft type A] aircraft on spot 4 under engine power due to hazard. [Local] ramp personnel require more training and understanding of this engine power.




Synopsis: A company Mechanic reported that Contract Ramp Personnel were not taking the necessary precautions to prevent aircraft damage during guidance into the gate area.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: FSS PRC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FSS (Flight Service Station) called me on the dial line requesting IFR clearance for Aircraft X. The aircraft had a filed routing and a requested altitude of 28000 feet. I told FSS to standby while I figured out a better route; based on LOA (Letter of Agreement) requirements. I then cleared Aircraft X via FSS on a different routing climbing to 16000 feet; expect FL280 10 minutes after departure. FSS read back correctly and I hung up the line. I then informed the sector Radar Controller about the future departure; including initial climb out altitude and direction of flight. The aircraft departed about 10 minutes after I issued the clearance; climbing out on course; to 16000 feet. The aircraft was radar identified and given a further climb to 28000 feet. Eventually; the aircraft was rerouted south; due to military airspace going active; as well as weather building up further west. There was no aircraft to aircraft conflict; nor aircraft to airspace conflicts.My concern is the fact that I did not provide Terrain or Obstruction separation and/or non-radar separation from the ground; through takeoff and departure until the aircraft was radar identified. I did not obtain pilot concurrence in regards to the new routing; and I also did not make use of the Obstacle Departure Procedure. There was no loss of separation with other aircraft nor airspace; but I did not ensure positive separation from terrain or obstructions until radar identification.I should review non-radar departure procedures from non-approach; uncontrolled airports with emphasis on leaving aircraft on their filed routing to the first navaid/fix/intersection; therefore nullifying the need to obtain pilot concurrence via FSS; which can take time and be inconvenient for all parties. It is my understanding that if I had just cleared the aircraft as filed there would not have been any loss of terrain separation. If possible; disseminate to pilots/dispatchers the appropriate; current routing for specific airports based on current requirements; which would decrease the amount of reroutes needed; both in the air and on the ground.




Synopsis: ZAB Developmental Controller reported issuing a departure clearance through the FSS which did not ensure terrain clearance.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SIG.Airport, PR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 400
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SIG
Second aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying right seat as a [Military] Auxiliary Flight Examiner in my aircraft a Columbia 400. We were cleared to land by Tower as Number 3. Number 2 aircraft was a Tencam with a student pilot. We believe that there was an instructor on board. When we were about 1;000 FT from the threshold we noted the Tencam at about 50-70 FT above the runway. The aircraft appeared to be going around. Our intention was to land which would have provided adequate separation. Instead the pilot dove for the runway and then climbed to about 30 FT blocking us from landing and blocking our exit to go around. Tower cleared us to fly over the canal to the left. That exit was blocked by a crane. We were able to fly around the crane come around on left downwind and land. Contributing factors were: (1) very tight airspace due to buildings and a crane; (2) the disparity in approach speed of the two aircraft; (3) the unexpected (and bizarre) maneuver by the student pilot; (4) the inattention of the Tower (no go around was transmitted); (4) the failure of my examinee to recognize the rapid convergence of the two aircraft and (5) my failure as examiner not to recognize the developing hazard.




Synopsis: The pilot examiner of a Columbia 400 took evasive action on short final when the aircraft in front of them dove for the runway during an assumed go-around. They were restricted by a crane in the area; but were able to maneuver around it and return for a safe landing.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: De-Icing Fluid
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: C208 Caravan TKS anti icing system (wet wing) aircraft on IFR flight plan; flying IMC with TKS system operating. Very strong chemical odor inside aircraft; TKS splatter spraying out of closed vents onto pilot. After landing several ramp personnel complained of strong chemical odor around aircraft and their eyes burning from it. Ramper inside aircraft repeatedly complained about odor inside aircraft and burning eyes. Problem is well known in the industry and aircraft is still operating. Read TKS MSDS exposure warnings.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C208 reported a strong chemical smell was detected while using TKS anti-icing system. Ground personnel also complained of odor and burning eyes from post-flight exposure.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: In April 2016 we were operating a scheduled flight. Upon vacating the runway after landing we received a call from the flight attendant advising us that there was a passenger who appeared to be having a seizure. At this point [priority handling was requested] on the ground. We were then given clearance to cross a runway and were advised that everyone would be notified. We entered the ramp; but it appeared that the Ramp Controller was unaware of our emergency status since a new spot clearance and frequency was given. My crewmember advised once again of our emergency situation. Afterwards; we were advised to contact Ground; as we contacted Ground; they were able to bring us back towards the main taxiways and utilize a runway as a means to help us expedite our taxi to the gate. During this emergency my fellow crew members and I worked together to the best of our training and experience to ensure no regulations; limitations or SOPs were ever exceeded or violated at any point during the emergency to attain immediate medical attention to the passenger.In the wake of the events; there are a few items that were debriefed that as a crew we felt needed some addressing to better enhance the outcome of similar; future scenarios.Some aspects that made the event challenging to manage was the swapping of multiple frequencies in order to receive our clearances to get to the gate due to Ramp and Ground controls handling. Had there been awareness throughout the entities; I believe that one controller could have sufficed in expediting our taxi in a complex; frequency congested airport; especially as an emergency aircraft. Also; operationally the gate was essentially on the other side of the terminal. An arrangement could have been made by operations to get us the nearest available gate to give the passenger the medical attention that was needed. To our surprise also; EMS was not waiting for us at the gate. There was a delay between our arrival and their presence on board. Considering our distance to position the aircraft; I feel that responders should have been there. The flight was completed and a debrief was made with the mangers without further event.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported that after landing with an ill passenger and obtaining emergency status; the crew still had difficulty expediting a direct route to the gate to get medical attention.