elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Unknown fumes throughout cockpit and cabin. After flight attendants complained about eye and throat irritation; Captain experienced eye irritation and slight dizziness. Emergency declared. Flight diverted to a nearby airport. Emergency response team met [the] aircraft; deplaned passengers; transported crew to nearby emergency room. Smoke and fume checklist and smoke/fume removal checklist preformed.




Synopsis: A B757-200 Captain declared an emergency and diverted after he and the flight attendants experienced slight dizziness; eye and throat irritation from unidentified fumes detected throughout the aircraft.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Prior to conducting the approach we briefed and planned on conducting the ILS 22 approach in LaGuardia. This is what was advertised on the ATIS and we planned for it. As we got vectored for the approach at approximately 4;000 feet and about 10-15 miles abeam the airport. ATC said that they are changing the approach to LDA A. Since we didn't plan on it; we asked if we can get vectors for a visual approach. We were given vectors to approximately 4-5 miles away from the runway at an approximate angle of 45 degree. We couldn't see the runway at that angle because it was dark. We advised ATC and got additional vectors for another visual approach. We were vectored on an angle again; but this time we had visual contact of the airport and landed.We debriefed and believe ATC was changing the approach for noise abatement. After the flight; me and the First Officer agreed that we worked well as a team using CRM skills. We were recently approved on the use of approaches with an 'A' and we will be ready to conduct this approach if necessary.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported they could not establish a visual with the runway at LGA after receiving vectors to presumably comply with noise abatement.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were told we had 2 jumpseaters. We had two jumpseaters. We showed 2 jumpseaters on the final Weight and balance. We noticed at cruise that the release only listed one jumpseater.  We notified company and got time and initials for adding jumpseater to release.COVID-19 departure procedures distracted from normal departure flows.


Second narrative: My First Officer for entire trip was removed for this leg and included as a jumpseater. He was on the pairing; was alerted for show; and was on the W/B; but was not on the release. During alert call I was told that we had two jumpseaters yet only one was at the hotel with us (my normal FO) and only one on the preliminary release (who was not at the hotel.) At that point we figured they had gotten the name wrong or they would correct it on the actual release form. Due to a complete change in clearing COVID protocols in ZZZZ we did not go to Operations as usual and got to the plane late. The second jumpseater was already in the plane when we arrived. The paperwork showed up well into our preflight process and I didn't catch the omission on the final release form. I did notice shortly after we got airborne and contacted Operations to add him. They sent us time and initials for the addition.Many different procedures; time shortage; information gap. Just missed one message I meant to send but got busy.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported mistakes in flight release documentation relating to the number of jumpseaters on board.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we climbed through 26000 feet we noticed a violent shaking of the flight controls and a sound of increased drag underneath the forward section of the aircraft. We disengaged the autopilot and it seemed as though the shaking increased. We informed ATC that we would like to stop the climb and informed them of our situation. They assigned us 24;000 feet and then 18;000 feet and informed us that the nearest airport was off of our right wing. We told them we want to divert there. At this time; as the work load increased; the Captain took the controls and I took the radios and checklists. As we turned toward the airport we informed the Flight Attendant (FA) of the situation and the actions we were taking were a precautionary measure. ATC vectored us to the final for [the] runway and as we ran checklists coming through 10;000 feet we informed the passengers that we would be making a precautionary landing due to abnormalities in the cockpit. The landing was uneventful but we were roughly 700 lbs overweight with a smooth touchdown <300 feet per min. After parking the Captain informed the passengers to please stay seated as he coordinated with the company on the events that were to follow.

Callback: The reporter stated that a Mechanic examined the aircraft and then accompanied the crew on the ferry flight to a Maintenance Station. The flight was limited to 10;000 feet at slower than climb speed but the vibration was not reproduced. The closest sensation the reporter could describe was that a gear door opened and stayed open. But; during landing when the gear come down; he had not felt a vibration that severe. He was not saying the anomaly was a gear door; he was just describing the sensation but as of this date does not have any additional information about the cause.

Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: An EMB-145 developed a violent shake with a thumping sound during climb at FL260; so the flight diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MVY.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MVY
ATC / advisory: TRACON K90
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On descent into MVY we were setting up for what looked like a right downwind for Runway 24. We were given a descent to 2;000 by ATC and told to make rapid descent because of traffic. As we approached 2;000 ATC issued a heading of 030 to get around the traffic. We had not been able to make visual contact with the other aircraft.While we were still in the turn we got a 'descend' RA. We complied with the RA and advised ATC what we were doing. As we received the clear of conflict message from TCAS the flying pilot began to roll wings level. At this point; the non-flying PIC made visual contact with the aircraft. It appeared to be a single engine. [However; as] the flying pilot rolled wings level a second aircraft was in our front wind screen. The flying pilot took evasive action by descending and turning left.The second aircraft was a twin engine piston aircraft; perhaps a Cessna 402 that looked to be headed for MVY. As the flying pilot was taking action the TCAS gave RA call outs with which we complied. We were approximately 500 FT from the second aircraft at the same altitude. After this we told ATC about the second aircraft and [then] went on to land on Runway 24.


Second narrative: ...I can't think of any way to have avoided this situation. That is a busy airport and we were on a IFR flight plan following ATC instructions when the event happened.


Synopsis: A G-IV flight crew suffered two consecutive conflicts with aircraft in the vicinity of their airport of intended landing. They followed a TCAS RA to avoid the first then came nose to nose with the second from which they took undirected evasive measures.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was training a developmental on departure/satellite departure/departure handoff combined. It was late in the night so it was pretty slow. A TEB departure came off and did not tag up. I went over to look at the strip and talk to the developmental about how to handle a no-tag. The Tower called and said they were changing their code. The collision alert goes off regularly on TEB departures/EWR arrivals so it didn't immediately cause concern. Then we realized that the aircraft appeared to be turning and climbing directly into the Newark arrival. The developmental and I reached out to him; but he was not on frequency. The Tower called and said they were fixing it.The departure is apparently tough on pilots because they mess it up all the time; but this was insanely close and felt like a NMAC.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported that a departure from TEB appeared to be turning and climbing toward an arrival into EWR. Controller attempted to contact the departure aircraft; but they were not on frequency. Tower Controller from departure airport resolved the issue.
Date: 201902
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X left the gate at XA:09. The ramp finalized the flights DSTG and DDLR at XB:16; however; the crew had already sent an ACARS they were number 1 for takeoff and needed weights. That message was sent at the same time the ramp finalized the flight. After the final weights were sent; I noticed the ramp finalized with only 7 bags in the same pit as the hazmat despite there being a warning on the DSTG requiring 15 bags to secure the hazmat. However; because final weights were sent at the same time the crew requested the weights and since they were number 1 for takeoff; there was no way to prevent the aircraft departure upon noticing the ramps failure to secure the DG in accordance with FAA regulations.




Synopsis: Airline ground personnel reported Hazmat loading error with no method to prevent aircraft from taking off.
Date: 201912
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While stowing the Captain's oxygen mask after a restroom break the oxygen hose broke off the mask. I was able to put a crimp in the hose to avoid losing all the cockpit system oxygen. After consulting with Dispatch and Maintenance Control; we decided to swap out the second observers oxygen mask with the defective Captain's mask. We watched the oxygen system level the rest of the flight and it was sufficient. We landed with 1;500 PSI of oxygen.




Synopsis: B787 Captain reported swapping oxygen masks after the Captain's oxygen hose broke off from the mask.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two departures were given to us by the Tower; the first was Aircraft X who was coordinated on a 010 heading. The second was Aircraft Y who was coordinated on a 315 heading. Aircraft X was RADAR identified and climbed on his 010 heading. When Aircraft Y first tracked up; he appeared to be on a Northwesterly heading; however moments after I RADAR identified him; I observed a turn to the North. I asked him immediately what heading he had been assigned from the tower. The pilot explained that he had been given a 315 heading with his take off clearance but when the Tower switched him over to the Center frequency; they had told him to fly heading 065 which put him back through Aircraft X. Because both aircraft were climbing and turning; I was concerned that the existing separation between the two aircraft was diminishing (it was flashing with about 3 miles) so I instructed him to continue his right turn to 090 to reestablish separation. Recommendation; I can only speculate as to what happened on the other frequency; but generally speaking; giving a control instruction and frequency change at once is bad procedure.


Second narrative: VRB Tower called with two departures; Aircraft X on a 010 heading and Aircraft Y on a 315 heading. When Aircraft Y checked on; he was climbing to 2;000 feet heading 065; right into the other departure heading 010. I called the Tower to advise them and asked if they issued the 065 heading and they seemed pretty busy and would call me back. I did not receive a call before I was relieved. While I was on the line with the Tower; my R-Side got more information from the pilot. Recommendation; make sure the Tower verifies aircraft depart on the heading that are coordinated with us.


Synopsis: ZMA Controller described a confused event when traffic transferred from a Tower was apparently on a wrong heading; the reporter speculating combining a frequency transfer and heading simultaneously could has caused the situation.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; 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: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: According to the OAPM (Optimization of Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex) the BOACH JANNY route is interrupted by the HEC t-fix or the LYNXX fix. We need a PDAR (Preferred Departure Arrival Route).




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller working sectors with new arrival/departure procedures discovered an error in one of the routes.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise at FL300; we received a LAT FUEL IMBAL Level One alert; followed very shortly by a FUEL LEVEL LO Level One alert. After bringing up the Fuel Synoptic page; the left main tank indicated 1850 pounds and the right main tank indicated 4500. All main tank boost pumps were on and functioning at the time of the event. The total fuel indicated (6400-6500) was already at/below the amount planned for landing in Atlanta. The Fuel Used indications for both engines matched each other and Fuel Flow looked normal. Based on this indication; we concluded we had a possible fuel leak. I was Pilot Flying at this time. The Captain took the controls and asked me to coordinate for direct to the nearest practical airport for the altitude we were at and for a lower altitude. Most of the remaining time was spent declaring an emergency; getting weather and active runway info for the diversion airport; and passing applicable information to ATC; as well at informing the Cabin Crew and passengers. On approximately 8-10 mile final the fuel quantity for the left main tank jumped back up to 4300 (matching the right tank) and the two Level One alerts extinguished. We then realized we most likely had an indicating problem as opposed to a leak; but were essentially committed to landing [so we did so].




Synopsis: A B717 flight crew diverted to a suitable airport due to an apparent major fuel leak in the left main fuel tank. On short final the quantity in the left tank rebounded to match that in the right tank.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eclipse 500
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 25 miles west of destination (ZZZ); I cancelled IFR with ZZZ Approach. The controller told me to squawk VFR and to switch to CTAF; On CTAF; I called 20 miles west of the field; then 10 miles west. In both calls I said I would fly over the field for a left downwind to Runway XX. About 5 miles west and descending through about 6;000-6;500 ft.; I was about to call 5 miles. when the the aircraft traffic advisory system announced traffic. The display indicated the traffic was at our position and altitude. I saw the Cessna when it was about 200 ft. directly in front of me traveling in the opposite direction. I pulled up abruptly and avoided a collision. I did not see the Cessna maneuver in any way to avoid the collision. I flew the rest of the pattern as planned.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid a mid air collision with another aircraft.