elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While taxiing to Runway 1R SFO; I quickly realized that the current 10-9 Taxi Chart did not reflect the new taxiway and runway configuration since the completion of the recent construction/repair project. I referred to the current iPad application and found it also did not reflect the current taxiway and runway configuration. During cruise; I compared the Sabre takeoff performance printout to the outdated 10-9 Taxi Chart. I was concerned that the new construction had changed the available length of the takeoff Runway 1R. The Sabre performance printout for runway length was identical to the out-of-date 10-9 chart. I sought resolution from the Dispatcher via ACARS; asking for the post-construction runway length. I did not receive a reply. Our takeoff on Runway 1R appeared normal and liftoff appeared to have occurred with adequate and normal runway distance remaining. The takeoff was without incidence. An immediate NOTAM providing an updated and accurate taxi chart with all appropriate taxiways and runway information is required for continued operation on the areas of the airport affected by the new configuration. Safe operations can only be conducted on runways and taxiways not affected by the recent construction and configuration changes until such a time as a normal and accurate taxi chart with all appropriate and accurate information is available.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reports that the airport diagram does not reflect the current taxiway configuration at the south end of Runways 1L and 1R after recent construction.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier X en route at FL320. I offered a short cut direct PKE VORTAC. The pilot asked; 'What do you want us to do after PKE?' According to pilot; PKE was not on his flight plan. After further investigation; pilot thought his flight plan was: ...KA27S..DRK..EED..UBABE.SBONO1.PSP; Flight plan in the host system was:  ...PAYSO..DRK.J96.PKE..UBABE.SBONO1.PSP. As an en route Controller; I don't completely understand how clearances are issued on the ground at major airports. But from what I understand; some of these clearances come out of a printer and are NOT verified verbally/completely from Controller to pilot. If this is true; obviously there is a margin for error here; which is not good. If the pilot is flying one route and the computer thinks he is flying a different route; the possibility for operational errors; airspace violations increases.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller offered a short cut to an en route air carrier only to discover that ATC and the flight crew had different routings.
Date: 202201
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Many people on the ramp have tested positive for COVID-19. We don't know who has it and who doesn't. People are coming to work sick; not following protocols like wearing masks or cleaning/sanitizing areas or social distancing. The plexiglass has been removed. People are coughing in the break room without wearing a mask or covering themselves. We are all exposed to getting Covid because of coworkers choices and actions. Some of us have even tested positive and have to quarantine for 10 days using our own personal time to cover the time off when it was something that happened at work. Federal law has not changed regarding masks. Everyone on airport property no matter where they are are required to wear masks. We have all been working mandatory overtime shifts for months now due to staffing shortage; the least that can be done is following up on workplace safety protocols and ensuring we have a safe work environment especially with all of these variants of Covid. Vaccines don't matter; people are still getting sick and still have to miss work; because they were exposed at work by people who fail to follow safety protocols. The company should be covering the time off due to Covid instead of making employees use their own time.




Synopsis: A Ramp worker reported fellow workers are not complying with company Covid 19 policies.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I came into work at approximately XA:49 for a XB:00 start. I received a briefing from the morning Dispatcher on the day's events and weather conditions. The morning Dispatcher logged out of the computer at approximately XA:53. It can take 3 minutes or more to fully log out of all applications including INTERNET; and three Dispatch tools. I began the login process at approximately XA:56. It can take an additional 3 minutes or more just to get into Microsoft Windows; then another 1-2 minutes to access the Dispatch tool; another 1-2 minutes to access the performance tools and another minute to open up the Company Flight Planning tool. Internet and other applications such as the Flight Schedule monitors can increase login time. By the time I gained access to the Dispatch tool; I had an ACARS message almost 10 minutes old from an aircraft telling me he had loss of cabin pressure and declared an emergency descent and diverting. I had no knowledge or way of knowing of his situation or plans for 10 full minutes while the morning Dispatcher logged out and I logged in. The crew then asked for performance data for landing at the divert airport. I had to then power up the performance tool and take another 2-3 minutes to get him the data he needed. The entire logout/login process is time consuming and valuable minutes and seconds are wasted filling in countless usernames and passwords to gain access to critical tools that could have greatly aided the diverting flight during an emergency.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Dispatcher describes the shift change login process which consumed ten minutes; during which time he is unable to communicate with his assigned aircraft; one of which in this event diverted for loss of cabin pressure.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: 5I4.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZID
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Personal training flight. Weather clear. Wind 05 at 120. Had flown east about 10 miles to the training area East of Morse Lake. I was flying at 2;600 feet. Cleared area. Flew S turns; turns around point; when I saw a plan approach on ADS-B (I was using a Dynon ADS-B receiver and wifi to my cell) Airplane approached close to me from the East. I noticed; since the plane's symbol turned orange - meaning it was 'close' I continued my training. The plane approached closer; and his symbol turned red. I looked to my left where he should have been viewable; but was unable to make contact. I turned away; to the right; and during my turn noticed a Aircraft Y above me; about 300 feet. I ID'd the plane on my ADS-B (Aircraft Y). I immediately pulled power and lowered to 2;100 feet. I turned course to Morse Lake; and the Aircraft Y followed me; above approximately 300 feet. I was able to see it; since my plane has a 'greenhouse' roof; and I was able to simply look up. The ADS-B signal was now one single red dot on my screen. The plane followed me right/left across Morse Lake.... We had NO Prior agreement to fly in formation. I had no way to contact this plane during my flight. The operator of Aircraft Y was obviously following my plane. My opinion; they were playing a weird cat and mouse. This behavior is contrary to proper airmanship. My major concern in writing this report is the fact such an act is now very easy. Any plane equipped with ADS-B can easily follow/shadow another --- and keep the signal on top of another. I have concerns this may be a new way for pilots to play cat and mouse - it is a very dangerous maneuver and against the FAR's separation guide.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC near 5I4 non-towered airport and questioned the airmanship of the other aircraft's pilot.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Champion Citabria 7ECA
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was cleared by ATC to turn base and follow traffic in on final. I had a white Skyhawk in sight on final; so I reported traffic in sight. ATC cleared me to turn. After turning base I saw another Skyhawk extremely close to me. ATC told me to hold present altitude and they told the Skyhawk to hold present altitude. I received vectors away from the GA corridor. After that I was again cleared to turn base. It was a miscommunication between both pilots and ATC I believe. I knew there was another Skyhawk somewhere in the pattern; and I thought it was further away (I heard its radio calls & it was about 10 miles out).




Synopsis: Pilot reported a near mid air collision when another aircraft over flew the aircraft while on approach to landing. ATC advised the Pilot to break off the approach and provided vectors to reenter the approach.
Date: 202005
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Assigned a 5 day ZZZZ trip from reserve.  On the deadhead leg; I observed non-compliance with the mask policy from one of my fellow crewmembers; simply no face covering worn at any time during the flight despite clear policy and announcements from the FAs.  On the working legs; none of the 4 of us wore our masks once the door was closed until we arrived in ZZZZ.  All of us wore masks in ZZZZ airport; but that relaxed in the van and at the hotel.  On our return; 3 out of 4 of us wore masks through ZZZ.  The one who did not was stopped for 30 minutes by the CDC; but not given a reason.  As I walked through ZZZ1 after returning; I noticed less than half of uniformed pilots wearing a mask while more than 80% of customers did.  My concern is not with any one crewmember; but with two general principles: 1. intentional non-compliance with company policy.  2. reducing customers security both physically and psychologically.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported inconsistent use of masks per guidelines by crewmembers.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Tower Supervisor called the TRACON Supervisor. Tower Supervisor advised that Aircraft X was on the runway and couldn't meet the altitude restrictions. TRACON Supervisor assumed that the departure was rolling and said I'll let the Departure Controller know. Tower took this to mean that it was approved to leave Aircraft X on the departure and cleared the aircraft for takeoff. On initial contact the pilot advised the controller. The controller turned the aircraft prior to the fix to avoid the arrival conflict. This is a very common problem with A321s that have destinations on the east coast. We should change the procedure as to stop calling to get approval every time for these issues; and change all of them to classic departures that the aircraft will be able to comply with.




Synopsis: A Traffic Management Coordinator reported an aircraft departed on an RNAV SID that could not comply with the crossing restrictions.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MHTG.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Twice on arrival to Runway 7 at MROC the flight deck was subject to laser illumination. Once while on the Fiora4 arrival; which is a left base to Runway 7 and once on final to ILS 07. I believe it to be the same attacker. First time came into Captain's side window when at 10;000 ft MSL. Brought to the attention of my FO and Approach Control. Second time after we turned final at about 10 miles out. The second time came in the front two windows. The laser seem to originate from about a five mile final. I told FO (PM) to lower her head and get her eyes below the glare shield until I was sure we had flown over the attacker. There was no direct illumination to the eyes; but it seemed to have decent amount of power and could have caused an issue if direct contact was made. Tower informed. Landed without incident.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported the cockpit was targeted by a laser twice on approach to Runway 7 at MROC.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: TFR ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was level at 2;500 MSL along ZZZ1 X route northbound under ZZZ Class B airspace. Light haze; light to moderate turbulence and a strong 30 kt crosswind from about 220. I have flown this route several times. ZZZ Controllers kept me out of B airspace which begins at 3;000 MSL as they always do. After crossing XYZ I noticed bright lights of sporting field and thought about a possible TFR. I had ForeFlight running on my iPad but had accidentally disabled TFR layer. I switched on the TFR layer and found that I was in the middle of the airspace. I decided to remain on present heading noting that the sporting event was completely empty due to COVID-19; not wanting to turn out to a large area of inland water; and realizing that I would clear the TFR in less than a minute on heading. ZZZ Controllers with whom I was in constant contact did not advise of TFR nor did they seem to notice that I'd busted the airspace.I should have been more thorough on the flight briefing. Obviously I did not consider possible TFRs in my planning. Originally I had planned on flying around Class B to the west but the winds aloft were quite strong and I realized minutes before departing that I could take the X route and cut 10-15 minutes off my enroute time. Additionally I had passengers aboard whom I thought would (and did) appreciate the scenic view of the X route at night. This caused me to change my route at the last minute. I had flown this route several times so I felt comfortable which led to some degree of complacency and corner cutting in my planning. I'm well aware that sporting events are common drivers of TFRs and I know about and have considered in the past TFRs in the area.




Synopsis: Pilot reported violating a sporting event TFR during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was pilot flying during daytime VFR flight. Climbing through FL300 for FL350 with autopilot engaged received master warnings for Pitch Trim Main Fail and Pitch Trim Backup Fail. Followed QRH procedure and reset both trim systems per QRH. Main Pitch Trim channel remained failed but Backup channel was recovered. Pilot Monitoring did an excellent job communicating with Dispatch and Maintenance Control as I hand flew down to FL270 to exit RVSM airspace. Group decision was made that it was safe and that we had plenty of fuel to continue flight to our filed destination and have Maintenance inspect the system. I hand flew the rest of the leg where we executed a Flaps 22 visual to Runway 2. Taxied to gate with no further incident. Threats were malfunctioning aircraft systems which led to abnormal flight operations such as flying with no AP for 600 plus miles at altitude and trimming with backup switch.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 EICAS alerted Pitch Trim Main Fail and Pitch Trim Backup Fail but using the QRH the Back Up channel was recovered so the flight continued to the filed destination without the autopilot.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMI.Tower, IL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C CMI
ATC / advisory: Tower CMI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Small aircraft was inbound to the airport on the ILS Runway 32R. The field was IFR with a low ceiling and low visibility with snow. The airport was in the middle of snow removal operations and had recently closed Runway 32L/14R; Runway 4/22; and numerous taxiways due to the amount of snow on those surfaces. PA-28 on approximately a six mile final reported their windscreen was completely obscured and they had zero forward visibility and could only see out the side windows. At that time I considered them an emergency and had a CPC on break to come up to assist. The other CPC called [airport rescue and fire fighting] and we had the fire trucks roll. When I was able to get a visual on the aircraft I could tell the aircraft was lined up with Runway 32L and on very short final and was not in a position they could have safely maneuvered back to Runway 32R. There weren't any vehicles on the runway and I told the aircraft they could land on the runway even though it was closed. I only had a split second to make a decision and I felt the best option at that point was for the aircraft to try and land on the snow covered runway and not climb back up for another approach and have more snow and ice accumulate on the aircraft. The aircraft shouldn't have been flying in the conditions.




Synopsis: CMI Tower Controller reported an aircraft that could not see due to snow on window landed on a closed runway with out incident.