elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Arrival and landing at EWR were normal operations. We taxied via ground control to the ramp as normal and Ramp Control assigned 'direct access' as our gate arrival instructions.  At EWR 'direct access' refers to Taxiway Uniform.  As we approached taxiway Uniform we noticed that it was still covered with snow.  There were no NOTAMs or ATIS information that indicated this taxiway being closed.  The taxiway had obviously been used for normal operations.  I slowed the aircraft to mitigate any slipping or sliding.  I made the turn onto taxiway Uniform as we approached the gate the ramp agents held up an 'X' with the marshalling batons and I stopped the aircraft.  The aircraft became stuck in the snow at this point.  The ramp agents eventually hooked up a tug and pushed us further into the snow.  A snow plow truck tried to start plowing snow directly in front of us very close to the aircraft with the engines running.  We did not have communications with the ramp crew and I tried to wave the plow truck away from the aircraft.  I elected to shut the number 2 engine down as a safety precaution because of the plow truck.  The ramp agents then connected a different tug and towed us into the gate.


Second narrative: Taxiing into gate in EWR via the direct access through taxiway Uniform there was a section of unplowed taxiway that had obviously been taxied through already; so once we received a clearance from ramp we followed instructions. As we were taxiing on Uniform the rampers suddenly told us to stop and subsequently told us we were stuck as we were still moving. From there they did not allow us to continue out taxi they instead attached a tug; and had a snow plow try to plow around and under our wing while the number 2 engine was running. We shut down the engine to make the situation safer. At that point the plow was unable to remove any snow around the plane; so the tug started to pull us to the gate.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported becoming stuck in snow during taxi to their gate at EWR.
Date: 201708
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 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: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the walk around the FO noticed no static line on the landing gear while the fueler was fueling. He inquired; and was told it was broken. The FO came to the cockpit and told me the situation. We had approximately 30k onboard with 10k to go. I ran out; told the fueler we have to have a static line or one spark and we are a bomb. I had to talk loud over the APU and Pack running. Luckily; the mechanic shed was right by the plane and I was able to get a mechanic to hurry over and fix it. While the mechanic was fixing it; I asked the fueler if he was trained about the static line; he responded that he had received training but didn't want to take a delay. I told him he put 185 lives at risk and the static line is absolutely required. I tried to speak with his supervisor but was not able to reach him/her.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported while the aircraft was being refueled in SFO the fueler did not have the static line attached because it was broken. Captain reported having a mechanic repair the static line; so fueling could be completed.
Date: 201308
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A B737-800 was given a clearance (in plenty of time) to descend via the ALDAN1 arrival; landing RDU. I didn't observe whether or not he met the SBV restriction as I had no traffic in the way; however; after I switched the aircraft to RDU Approach; I noticed the B737 crossed ALDAN at 13;800 and violated LIB (Sector 27) airspace. Once the pilot deviation was noticed; I had my D-Side call Sector 27 with a point-out so it would become known traffic in their airspace. The pilots need to have more education as to how to fly descend via clearances. There are so many questions asked on a regular basis between the ALDAN1 arrival and the IVANE1 arrival; that it is apparent that they have not received proper training for flying an OPD. If this continues; a pilot deviation due to lack of education may cause an accident someday.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described an airspace infraction when a 'descent via' clearance was apparently misunderstood by an RDU air carrier arrival; the reporter noted pilots need improved training on these procedures.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RAL.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Other flight school
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D RAL
ATC / advisory: Tower RAL
Reporter organization: Other flight school
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I had a near miss with a white flying wing type drone near the Riverside Auto Center at an altitude of 2;400 MSL. My student was at the controls; flying inbound from Lake Matthews at 2;400 ft to set up for a left base on Runway 27 as instructed by Riverside Tower. My student noticed and called out that an object was off our right (2 o'clock) and was at the same altitude. Initially; we thought it was a bird; but as is closed in on us; we saw that it was a white flying wing type drone about 4 feet wide [and] 100 feet away traveling west bound at our altitude. It did not deviate its course; I took [over] controls and altered course to the left. We continued on our base leg and reported the issue to Tower and landed without issue.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a near miss with a drone while on an instructional flight at an altitude of 2;400 feet.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I want to start by saying Thank You. The [safety reporting system] Alert on the in-range notice prevented us from missing the company note on the Jeppesen [chart] reminding us about being below SFO Class B airspace on a portion of the arrival into OAK. It did take a little time while beginning the descent to load the SFO airport in the EFB; select the Class B chart; and then try to go back and forth between two different airports in the Jeppesen pages to decide exactly where we should slow down so as not to exceed 200 kts below the Class B. The alert worked as advertised but I wanted to offer a few suggestions on how to help alleviate these types of potential pilot deviations from taking place in the future. Having a STAR procedure that has no speed and altitude restrictions published on it to slow to 200 kts before descending below Class B Airspace is a recipe for failure. The two arrivals the Alert mention are: OAKES2 and EMZOH3. I think it would help to have Jeppesen modify the arrivals to include speed and altitude restrictions to comply with speed limits under the Class B; overlay the SFO Class B chart on the OAK arrivals to have an easy reference; or list the fixes on the company 10-10 page where we should slow to 200 kts by. I believe on the EMZOH3; the MYNEE fix is where we want to slow to 200. On the OAKES 2; the PRFCT and BBUBB fixes should have the same note. It would be best to have the STAR republished with inserted restrictions; but short of that; listing specifics on the 10-10; and or overlaying the SFO airspace on the OAK STARS would also be helpful. Thank you for looking into this and for the interim Alerts on the in-range ACARS message.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported chart deficiencies related to Class B floor awareness on RNAV arrivals into SFO and OAK.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: B737 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: 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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I haven't been to POS in quite a while; so I spent some time perusing the multitude of NOTAMs on the release packet. After wading through the long list of hurricane recovery NOTAMs for the Bahamas; I happened to notice at the SVZM NOTAMs contained very explicit notices about Venezuela airspace being closed to [Company] aircraft....'NO EXCEPTIONS.'  That was on the first leg of the first trip. Since that flight; I have only seen a dispatcher add the SVZM NOTAMs one other time; on my 3rd and final outbound leg.Additionally; the company prohibition is buried a ways down from the NOTAM that says flight 'below FL260 is prohibited.'  Reading the first NOTAM might lead one to believe we could fly through the FIR as long as we are above FL250.I have pointed this out to my First Officers; all of whom are POS regulars. None of them were aware of it. I have tried to pull those NOTAMs up on my own on legs without them included. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong in [Dispatch Computer System]; but I can't get them to appear.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported company documentation errors regarding NOTAMs; release; weather; and flight plan.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ELP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had been vectored off of the WAZKO1 RNAV Arrival toward the final approach course for the RNAV Runway 4 at ELP. We broke out of the overcast around 9;000 ft. and were approaching KANTR at 7;500 feet. There was a lot of ambient light from the city below and the reflection of that light from the overcast above as well as the fresh layer of snow on the surface. Approach cleared us for the approach and gave us 'Direct KANTR; Maintain 7;200 ft. until KANTR;' which I read back; with an emphasis on the '200'. The FO (PF) selected vertical speed mode after I set 7;200 ft. in the altitude preselector and called '7;200 ft. set!'. The published altitude at KANTR is 7;500 feet; which is located above terrain at 5;851 ft. We leveled at 7;200 ft. and she called for Flaps 18; and we joined the final approach course with the runway; and the terrain below in sight since descending out of 9;000 ft. Just then the GPWS System chimed in with 'Terrain! Pull Up!'. The FO dutifully disconnected the autopilot and I told her NOT to go around; as we were on a published segment of the final approach in good VMC (ELP was reporting 10 SM Vis) and I had the terrain in sight the whole time. We were not descending; and we had been level for some time. We landed without incident and taxied to our gate. Upon docking; I asked Ground for the phone number to the folks at approach control. The fellow who answered offered that he was indeed the Controller. I told him what had happened and he said that it was not at all uncommon; and that 7;200 ft. was their Minimum Vectoring Altitude in that sector. I told him that I would be filing a report with respect to the incident; for his own information.If there are other similar incidents here a communique should be distributed to the pilot group.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported GPWS Terrain warning while following ATC clearance at Minimum Vectoring Altitude during approach to ELP airport.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Second aircraft: B737-800
Aircraft component: Lifevest/Jacket
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I met with Name 1 (Flight Service Policy & Procedures) at ZZZ this morning and we both audited several aircraft; five 737s and two A321s. We were also accompanied by Duty Manager; Name 2. Out of the seven; four were found with non-serviceable Universal Life Vest kits. One aircraft had too many kits aboard - three instead of two. Two kits were missing the required number of vests; and the other two were fitted with incorrect type of vest; (adult/child instead of Universal). Each were promptly reported to Line Maintenance for correction. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were the two found to have the incorrect vest type. On Aircraft Y; the Captain added this finding to the logbook. At this point; I suggested to the group we call off the audit in order to avoid overwhelming Line Maintenance which may result in inadvertent flight delays. In addition to the non-serviceable kits; this audit brings forth the deficient training related to preflight of the Universal kit; lack of control (tamper seals) on each kit; plus a long noted history of complacency (non-compliance) regarding preflight equipment checks. As noted in previous reports; (and with the exception of the aircraft that was over-provisioned); each aircraft flew an unspecified cycles with either missing and/or incorrect provisioning of the Universal Life Vest kit. Therefore; possible violation of FAR regarding cabin emergency equipment. Flight Service Policies and Procedures now has a firsthand understanding of the gravity (and systemic) problem that each of my previous CERS/ASAP reports have documented. My hope is the significance of today's findings instills an even higher level of response from leadership (and appropriate departments) for a swift remedy of this safety risk. This ASAP report is to ensure transparency and data collection regarding this matter which has yet to be fully resolved for greater than 2.5 - 3 years.




Synopsis: Inflight Services Manager reported conducting an audit on seven aircraft at station and found all to have missing or incorrect life vests on aircraft ready for service or pre flighting from operations.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The First Officer and I were on a visual approach going into Las Vegas. I was the flying pilot. We just were granted a visual approach to Runway 25 left in LAS. We were at about 20 miles to the south east. We were on about a 260 degree heading coming off the TYSSN arrival. I put 4;900 feet in the altitude window to stay above the terrain in the area. In that exact spot there was a hill that extended up to 3;738 MSL. We got a GPWS warning right when I leveled off at 4;900 feet and right over the top of this butte. It was clear and we thought everything was set up right. I just missed the minimum sector altitude in our area.I didn't put in a high enough altitude to stay above the warnings. I should have stayed higher on the visual approach until on the localizer to guarantee the altitudes. I put in 4;900 feet; but in the sector that I was in it wasn't high enough over the one butte that is out there about 20 miles to the south east of the field.Do not take the visual approach again until either you're on the localizer; or over 6;700 feet AGL in the sector; I will take more time looking for the Minimum Safe Altitude (MSA). Being more familiar with the approach sector sometimes goes unnoticed; but for now on it will be in my own personal briefing.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing a GPWS warning while on a visual approach to LAS.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying to ZZZ; arriving from the southwest. About 8 miles out I radioed ZZZ tower; with ATIS (Automatic Terminal Information Service); requested landing. Tower responded left hand traffic for 25L. As I entered my downwind leg the Tower radioed me asking if I would rather take 25R? I responded - no - I preferred 25L. I flew my downwind; turned base; and I could see another airplane on base turning final. I heard another airplane (I think it was the guy I was watching) say 'I have the traffic on parallel runway. I then radioed 'I also have the traffic on parallel'. Then Tower radio's to me '[Aircraft X] are you turning base?' I responded 'No I am on base turning final'. Then he says something like 'aircraft on short final' then he says 'xxxx? call sign - go around. At this point I see out of the corner of my eye right side behind me an airplane very close who turns left behind me. Near miss. Maybe that guy had me in sight the whole time? I was alarmed because of near miss. The other plane comes on the radio and complains that 'that guy was really close; what happened?' I cant remember the sequence of the next few radio messages. Tower tell the other guy it wasn't his fault. I tell tower I was cleared for 25 Left; with emphasis on the Left; thinking that guy was supposed to be on 25 Right. Tower tells me I was number 2 for 25 Left. I continue to land and taxi without incident.I was searching my memory for any recollection that I was told I was #2; or that I was following another plane; or that I should extend my downwind. But I didn't recall any instruction like that. So I want to learn from this incident. I don't think it was my fault; but maybe I should have double checked that I was #1 and cleared to land. Also maybe there was 3 planes involved. 1 on 25R (which I saw); another on 25L which I didn't see and then cut in front of him causing the near miss; and 3rd plane- me.




Synopsis: C-182 Pilot reported a near miss with another aircraft on final approach.