elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Jet Ranger All Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I work for a company that provides aerial video for a local TV station. The station was sponsoring a balloon festival and requested video of the event. We had been orbiting for about 45 minutes at 2000 MSL when the station advised that they had sufficient video and to return to base.I initiated a left turn from 180 to 010 when my camera man in the rear left seat exclaimed 'did you see that'? I asked what and he replied a little plane just flew under us; I glanced at the TCAD readout and saw traffic; .1 miles and -200 ft. I never saw the aircraft but we shot video of it and could see later that it was a C-182. I had UNICOM frequencies up for two local airstrips which is where I think the C-182 departed from; I had heard no traffic on those frequencies. I don't believe the high wing Cessna ever saw us.I usually turn down the audio on the TCAD when departing Class C as I find it distracting and in this instance I had not returned the TCAD volume to cruise setting. Also; I had been focused on spacing from the dozen or so balloons that were popping up everywhere below us and was not scanning for traffic. Next year I will ask the balloon event organizer to include orbiting helicopter in the NOTAM.




Synopsis: A Helicopter TV crew reported a near miss at 2;000 feet as they departed a balloon festival after providing aerial coverage.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Flight Crew; Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: 30 minutes after flight left gate the crew sent ACARS message stating there was a restricted article (R/A) in aft bin. The crew trashed the Notice to Captain (NOTOC) when entering flight deck thinking it was for previous flight. Dispatch Procedures Manual (DPM) has formatted [automated messaging] to ACARS flight [crew] once cargo agent fills in the info. Cargo agent insists aircraft must return to gate. Chief Dispatcher shows me a page out of some cargo manual that states the aircraft must return to gate and obtain NOTOC. Flight Manual (FM) states an R/A on the closeout requires a NOTOC prior to takeoff. Nowhere in the FM does it state the use of the [automated messaging] mentioned in the DPM. To make it more confusing it was learned that the R/A was lithium battery. FM states [company] supplies an auto-NOTOC for lithium batteries cargo even when normally not required. The flight took off before anything was accomplished. Dispatcher never [received] the info from the cargo agent. Make auto-NOTOC available to both [the] dispatcher and pilot iPad. Also state in FM that [dispatchers] may ACARS information per DPM [automated messaging]. Also whatever cargo manual states that the flight must return to gate when no NOTOC is onboard should be removed.




Synopsis: Dispatch reported flight departed with missing HAZMAT documents which indicated procedural inconsistencies exist among company department manuals.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FAY.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D FAY
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAY
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I departed and contacted Approach on 125.175 to enter Class C airspace. I reported location and intention and that I had ATIS. I was flying at 2;500 feet on a VFR flight plan direct to MYR. The Controller responded and assigned a squawk code. I entered the code in the transponder and continued on course to MYR. The Controller began talking to the pilots of other aircraft. Several minutes later I noticed what appeared to be a military transport departing a nearby airport. Shortly after departure; I heard the military pilot on the same frequency; 125.175. His aircraft turned directly toward me and continued to climb. At the time; I was about 5 NM from his departure airport. When the transport was about one-half mile away; I heard the pilot report that he was approaching a small airplane; which was my aircraft. I reported that I had the aircraft in site; but the Controller at about the same time reported that he had no other aircraft on his radar in the area; so I do not think my transmission was heard. The aircraft passed about 400 feet directly below me. I never felt like I was in danger because I could have taken evasive action with a turn to the right. I did not turn because I initially thought that the Controller had both aircraft on radar and had judged that we were legally separated. I later confirmed that the Controller had never picked me up on radar. He asked me to recycle my transponder; and then apparently he could see me on radar. When I entered MYR Class C airspace later that day; the Myrtle Beach Controller also asked me to recycle the transponder. I flew again the next day and no problem with the transponder was noted by any controllers. The transponder is scheduled to be checked out but has not yet been examined.




Synopsis: A small aircraft pilot reported a near miss with a military transport near FAY as he attempted to establish flight following with an intermittent transponder.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X landed on [Runway] 6R during our over ocean procedures.  He rolled to the end and exited at Victor turning right on to Echo.  As he was exited 6R at Victor; Aircraft Y who was on a 2.5 mile final advised that the ILS just went all over the place and wondered what was going on.  I advised him that the proceeding arrival was the Super and that it was possible that the size of the Super disrupted the signal. Aircraft Y then stated that it was showing normal again.The only thing I could recommend regarding Aircraft X and landing on 6R; or 6L is that the subsequent arrival trailing the Super should be no closer than 10 miles in trail due to the signal disruption.  This would allow the Super to safely exit the runway and cross the inboard runway if he lands on the outboard. That way the Super would not disrupt the trailing aircraft while it's within a 3 mile final.




Synopsis: An LAX Local Controller reports of a Super aircraft landing and then traffic following reports the ILS signal as being interrupted. The Super was exiting the runway ahead when the disturbance was reported.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger A boarded and I noticed her mask was down I advised her to cover her nose for boarding. She was sitting in X6. She later came up to first class as the Customer Service Agent (CSA) upgraded her. She came up with her mask below her nose. I told her please cover your nose and this is the 2nd time I've had to tell you. She then said is this required I said yes it is required. I spoke to the CSA who informed me she is a non-revenue passenger. This made me very uncomfortable. I asked her if she was non-revenue and who she knew at the Airline. She asked me why and I said because you aren't wearing your mask and I need to report it. She refused to give me the name. I honestly didn't feel comfortable having her be seated in first class and on the flight. He said it was up to me to have her off. I decided to let her go. This is unacceptable behavior for a non-revenue passenger.I shouldn't have to feel unsafe or have her argue with me about wearing the mask. I would also let them know flight benefits can be removed and how serious COVID-19 is taken.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported non-revenue passenger refused to comply with the company's face mask policy.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PWM.TRACON, ME
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: TRACON PWM
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off to me at 21;000 feet. I had identified prior to the handoff that the descent was probably going to be very difficult for the aircraft considering the ratio between the distance to the airport and number of feet necessary to descend 18;000 feet over about 40 miles. Upon initial contact I told the pilot to descend to 3000 feet which is the crossing altitude for the GPS approach. As the pilot got closer to the airport I decided to vector the aircraft northbound to accommodate the descent. Once the aircraft was in a better position to; altitude wise; make a stable approach; I turned them to a 090 heading. The aircraft was at about 8;700 feet in a 3;600 foot minimum vectoring altitude(MVA); 4.6 miles from a lower 2;100 foot minimum vectoring altitude. At about 7;000 feet; I turned the aircraft southbound on a 170 heading to point them closer to the initial fix for the GPS approach. Within the next couple miles the aircraft descended a lot quicker than I expected. By the time I noticed the aircraft was going to descend below the 3;600 foot MVA to 3;000 feet; it was too late. The aircraft was at 3;600 feet about 1 mile from the boundary; 3;400 feet .75 miles from the boundary; and 3;200 feet .24 miles from the boundary before exiting the 3;600 foot MVA into the 2;100 foot MVA at 3;100 feet.I should have acted quicker to stop the descent; though right up until it happened I thought the aircraft was going to stay high enough. We have seen this at the facility over the last few days. The aircraft are being handed off relatively late and very high. The weather was not very good and the winds aloft were making the aircraft faster than normal; so the descents have been difficult. A recommendation would be to delivery our northern satellite arrivals to us at a lower altitude.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended much quicker than anticipated and flew below their Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202102
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other all
Aircraft component: Cabin Crew Seat
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Both jumpseats at cross aisle 1 are not positioned safely for the Flight Attendants. The FA (Flight Attendant) cannot sit in a protective brace position; due to the proximity to the bulkhead wall. Keep in mind; 2 FA's cannot sit side by side if one has to spread their legs apart to be seated there.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that flight attendants cannot be in a brace position when sitting in the jumpseats at a cross aisle due to their proximity to the bulkhead wall.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We took off and experienced a severe vibration on the number one engine (6.0+). We declared an emergency with ATC and were being vectored back while executing the appropriate checklist. The flight attendants were briefed using the TEST acronym and the cabin was prepped for an evacuation.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain experiences severe vibration in the left engine shortly after takeoff and declares an emergency. Flight is vectored back for landing at the departure airport.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ2.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL340 approximately 150 miles east of ZZZ; the Flight Attendants called to report an odor in the main cabin. The smell was described as 'propane or some kind of gas' and was reported by multiple passengers around row 28. After running the QRC; and no known or suspected source of the odor; we decided to execute a divert to ZZZ1. We requested priority handling.During the approach through approximately 10k feet; after a 'descend and maintain 8 thousand' we got an RA with a climb command. I (FO [First Officer] and PF [Pilot Flying]) disengaged all automation and climbed until resolved. The rest of the approach and landing was uneventful; and a heavyweight (167k) landing was accomplished. Paramedics were available at the gate upon arrival to Gate X at ZZZ1. Though we were given vectors after requesting priority handling; it seemed like ATC dropped us out of their crosscheck; as evidenced by the RA. I obviously wasn't on their scope though; and it's possible the RA was caused by an aggressively climbing contact below.Fairly cut and dry divert; minus the RA.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a fume event during cruise and executed a diversion; receiving a TCAS RA during diversion which was handled with no issues.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had approximately XXX passengers in coach. Many of the passengers were traveling in large groups/families. All came on with masks; but during boarding; masks started to come off and many were worn under the nose. It was a bit chaotic during boarding because about 1/2 of the passengers remained standing in the aisle; looked around to change seats; etc. PAs were made and we followed the new COVID-19 guidelines. However; during the flight; almost all of the many children would not wear their masks. Many of the adults wore their masks under their nose or not at all. We spent the entire flight reminding them to wear the masks. The parents did not enforce this with the children. Passengers around the families complained about the lack of social distancing because of the standing and no masks. I had to re-seat passengers who felt unsafe.As a crew member; I felt we followed what was expected of us; however; there were so many passengers who did not follow the COVID-19 prevention guidelines. I do feel that we as flight attendants and passengers traveling in the coach cabin were at higher risk of being exposed to COVID-19 if anyone on the flight was infected. Many of [the] passengers were in non-compliance in all phases of the flight. The purser came back to speak with the groups that were not in compliance; but it did not change the behavior of the passengers. Additionally; we were over the Ocean; any threat of landing immediately to remove the non-compliant passengers could not be accomplished.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported numerous passengers did not complying with face policy during flight.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CHO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared for a night visual approach with the autopilot engaged. Approximately 4 NM east of SIPME FAF for runway 3 received a 'terrain; terrain; pull up' warning from EGPWS. Initiated the escape maneuver. No more terrain warnings were received. Leveled and maneuvered to reestablish ourselves for a visual approach. No further issues with the remainder of the approach and landing.FO remarked as we discussed later that at the moment of the EGPWS warning he observed a radar altimeter reading of 2;450 feet. I recall our indicated altitude as being in the region of 2600 MSL at the time of the alert. 2600 feet was set in the altitude alerter by us as it corresponded to the minimum altitude on the approach to SIPME. Rate of descent was less than 1000 FPM; I believe.Cause:1. Incomplete terrain information in [our airport information] pages.2. ATC efforts to have the crew accept an early visual approach; at night; in the vicinity of rising terrain.3. Unfamiliarity with airport. 4. Night-time approach in VMC.Leaving CHO this morning I observed a ridge line in the area of the event. The only topographical feature that corresponds to the ridge on the chart is the 1049 Ft 'obstacle' east of SIPME. Rate of descent and height above terrain in the area has us wondering if we didn't have an erroneous alert. In future I will treat an approach into CHO as if it were a special qualification airport and request vectors to the final approach course; only accepting the visual approach once established. Our [airport information] talks about the ridge line to the West of the airport. I would like to see it speak about the one to the East also as I see it is a 'hidden' threat. The approach controller was keen for us to accept a visual approach earlier than we did. I mentioned this to the FO and we agreed that though we both saw the beacon and the airport environment that we would delay accepting a visual approach. It has been a couple of years since I last flew to CHO and have never approached it from the East or at night.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain received an EGPWS warning; initiated an escape maneuver; and returned to land while on a night visual approach to CHO Runway 3.