elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D SBP
ATC / advisory: Tower SBP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Departed a Towered Airport at night on a VFR climb; without an ODP; or SID.  SBP LOC 11 is inop; so Tower will not assign CREPE DP. ODP for [Runway] 29 is NOTAM NA; leaving no way to take off [Runway] 29 at night. We contacted Dispatch and was told that if we asked for a VMC climb then we could depart. The flight plan was SBP-CADAB-FROST-WOLFF. We were uncomfortable with departing at night towards the terrain. We decided to take a delay of 30 minutes; so that we could see the terrain; and asked for Tower to add CREPE Intersection to our flight plan. We then proceeded to fly out to CREPE and on course with no other issues. Ops spec state that VFR climb is approved if there is not [an] ATC facility. SBP has an open Tower at XA:00 am. I think we need to either get guidance on departing VFR or VMC with an operating Tower. Also; taking off in the dark at SBP is dangerous and should be avoided at night until the ODP is available.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported departing at night on a VFR climb without an ODP or SID available.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Pilot visual was being applied throughout the Piper's descent from 6;000 FT. Aircraft were about 2.5 NM apart and the Conflict Alert never activated until the Piper descended through the Caravan's altitude of 5;000 FT and attained standard separation again at 3;900 FT. After separation was lost and then regained; only then did the Conflict Alert activate. The Conflict Alert was definitely not doing its job here and yet we have many instances of two VFR aircraft tail to tail with standard separation and the Conflict Alert is still flashing. Something is amiss. An additional event involved aircraft that crossed paths and Conflict Alert did not activate until aircraft were 2-3 NM apart going away from each other with increasing separation. No Conflict Alert was present while aircraft were 004 apart converging. It should have been activating but did not activate until the event was over. Determine why the Conflict Alert fails to display during a valid conflict situations.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller provided several examples of the Conflict Alert function; which according to the reporter; fails to activate when appropriate.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Advised after the fact that I was not configured prior to 1;000 feet. I'd mistakenly thought that was to be done by 500 feet. Reviewed FOM and discussed Captain not calling the go-around at the gate.I turned too close to the FAF and was trying to keep my speed up thinking someone was right behind us. There wasn't. I also inadvertently left power in on glideslope capture; so was behind and trying to catch up.Fly your reserves more. I have been picking up trips to try to stay proficient; being new to company procedures. I won't make this mistake again; but am missing flying to stay at the 110% needed to do this job.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported the aircraft was not properly configured for approach per company procedures. Reporter cited the need to fly more frequently.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PPA.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G PPA
ATC / advisory: CTAF PPA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: AWOS winds reported 100 [at] 3 - direct crosswind. Normal traffic calls made on PPA UNICOM frequency. After turning final for Runway 17 at PPA; both pilot flying and pilot not flying witnessed an AG aircraft turning low final for Runway 35. A go-around was initiated while altering course to the right. Entered right traffic for Runway 17 and returned for normal landing.The lack of radio communication/monitoring practiced by the AG aircraft operator lead to reduced situational awareness for both aircraft. Could be prevented by proper use of AIM radio techniques by AG aircraft operator.




Synopsis: BE99 Captain reports using standard CTAF procedures arriving Runway 35 at PPA to find himself nose to nose with an Ag aircraft landing on Runway 35. The reporter goes around and lands on Runway 35.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: While working [Sector] W which is MIA South departure; TMB arrival and departure; HST Air Reserve Base arrival and departure and also the position that handles two sky dive businesses both of which were active and flying during this tour on W. The radar room was short of staffing due to Operation's Manager decreeing that all Controllers not current on ELMS courses must have them current before being assigned a position. There were even controllers doing ELMS's in the radar room at the Supervisor's position. My position of responsibility was getting busier and busier and TMB was requesting releases; HST Air Reserve Base was requesting releases. I was unable to answer the line for either TMB or HST. I asked for help in the form of splitting the position. No help came. There wasn't anybody available due to ELMS's. I; the W position; have always been a position that in most minds at work should be split but seldom is. I finally got help and as I was trying to start a briefing I had Aircraft X southbound and Aircraft Y northbound. They were opposite direction to each other and passed 700 to 800 FT apart. No TCAS; no mention from the pilots; nothing at all. Splitting W and having more supervision regarding the operation and not paperwork should be the focus. ELMS courses should be assigned with the operation in mind not the other way around. We all need to have bean counters but not at the cost of stripping the operation of man power.




Synopsis: Reporter states while working radar position; Aircraft X and Aircraft Y had a loss of separation. Reporter attributes loss of separation to inadequate staffing because other's were doing other duties as assigned.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a training flight in the local traffic pattern the student pilot reported that he was unable to retard the throttle. I took control of the aircraft and too found that the throttle would not retard lower than approximately 2300 RPM. I contacted ATC; [received priority]; and was able to slow the plane by leaning the mixture. Landing was uneventful but the engine stopped prior to being able to clear the active runway and required tow.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported engine became uncontrollable; requiring a return to the airport.
Date: 202006
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked pre-departure
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A pilot report was sent to the company concurrently with this report concerning the non compliance of passenger seat 1B xxx for refusal to wear a facial covering. Numerous announcements were made; however; neither passenger removal or Security Level threats were made given the 'non compliance.'  The flight attendants correctly initiated a report after numerous warnings and announcements; however; no further action was taken other than to inform Dispatch.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger was non-compliant with wearing a face mask during the flight.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Earlier in the trip; the First Officer (FO) was rushing and executed FMC navigation changes before I had a chance to verify them. I asked him to slow down and give me a chance to verify before he executed changes and he accommodated my request. I also noted that the First Officer was doing what almost all [company] pilots do when an altitude change came in. He dialed in the new altitude on the MCP (Mode Control Panel); pointed at it; stated it and began the climb or descent with no input from the other pilot. I did not counsel him about this because that is so commonly the way altitude changes are handled; despite guidance to the contrary in the FOM.On the flight in question; we were on an assigned heading when the Controller cleared us direct and a climb to FL390. As I read back the clearance; I observed the FO dial 39000 in the MCP; point at it and state 'three nine oh' and press the altitude intervention button. I verified that FL390 came up as the target altitude on the MCDU (Multi-Function Control and Display Unit). While I was verifying that the aircraft was beginning to climb; the First Officer brought up [clearance point] on the FMC Legs Page 1. I verified the programming was correct and stated; 'That looks good' and watched him execute the change. I took my attention back to the altitude and could see by then that the aircraft was beginning a climb and the thrust was increasing. I never confirmed that the First Officer selected LNAV or that the aircraft turned [to comply with clearance]. A few minutes later the Controller called and pointed out our error. We then took the proper procedural steps to get the airplane on course.Slow down. I think guys feel like when they get two items in a clearance; they have to rush or they'll forget one of them. I think if we simply slow down and work methodically; we'll make fewer errors. Obviously; I failed to properly monitor the situation. I think if [company] focused on and insisted upon proper altitude change procedures; it would force the cockpit crew to slow down and not move on to the lateral part of the clearance until the vertical part had been worked through as a team.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported a track deviation occurred when the crew let themselves get rushed in executing a clearance change.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We boarded on time. Before agent came down with paperwork; I had called the agent to let them know we had zero space on aircraft and to please check anymore rollerboards. Agent came down with paperwork. I informed them that we had bags to check. As agents were tagging bags; I noticed that neither agent was asking passengers about spare lithium batteries. After a few times asking them; they finally did ask. I did inform the Captain before closing the aircraft door. All employees must be aware of safety issues. Agent did not ask passengers about spare lithium batteries until I questioned the agents on the procedure. This happened with two different agents.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported Gate Agent tagging passenger cabin rollerboards for cargo without inquiring status of Lithium Ion batteries.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA; TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During descent below 18;000 feet we encountered severe/extreme turbulence we advised air traffic control Los Angeles center and also SoCal approach. The Captain entered a numbered item report in the maintenance logbook and we advised/briefed the outbound crew. We were pretty shaken up during the arrival since neither the captain or myself had experienced this type of turbulence before. We thought we had done all required actions until this morning we were debriefing our performance and in revisiting flight manual part one under required reports we realized we had kept dispatch out of the loop. A report to dispatch was required after landing when encountering severe turbulence. In retrospect we tend to forget about dispatch once the flight lands and we leave the aircraft.  Hence mentally we remove our attachment to them. Inflight we depend on the great support that they provide and we make the required position/ride reports as necessary to keep them abreast of our progress. During events like the one reported above the only thing that I personally think could help is to develop a habit/muscle memory to include dispatch in the loop of things to do anytime anything on a flight is not routine.


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


Synopsis: A large transport aircraft on descent into a Southern California airport encountered severe turbulence. The crew made a PIREP and a maintenance logbook entry; but failed to notify dispatch as per company policy.
Date: 202105
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Sorry for the delay in filling this report. I have been having difficulty concentrating and following through on my duties. On Date; boarding a flight from ZZZ-ZZZ1. We had a Fume Event at the boarding door; and continued during the two hour flight. During boarding the number 2 flight attendant report to the cockpit; there was an odd smell entering the aircraft when they boarded. And then the number 1 repeated the claim; also to the cockpit. The cockpit did nothing to investigate; we pushed back and went to ZZZ1. During the flight; I became nausea; headache; sore throat; burning eyes; and dizzy. Along with the rest of my crew. The number 1; reported to the Captain we were ill and to have medical personal to meet the air craft. We all filled out a report in flight. We spent two visits to the ER in ZZZ1. And spent X days there in the hotel.  I was grounded for additional time; because I had fluid in my lungs. I went to the ER [at domicile].  I found out I still had carbon monoxide poising still in my blood; X days later. After a couple days. I went to the Company clinic in the airport at ZZZ2. I was told by the doctor he would not release me to come back to work; he felt I was unsafe to fly. He wanted me to see a neurology doctor. I reported the findings to my OJI case manager; and she said he can not do that. And with in one hour; I received an email releasing me to go back to work. Also was informed; I only get two doctors appointments payed for by the company; the rest is out of my pocket. I still having migraines; balance issues; night sweats; shortness of breath; muscle pain; fatigue; chills; short memory issues and some shaking. The company has done nothing but give me two points for attendance issues and taken around XX hours of my personal sick time for pay. Which is most of my sick time gone. Also I know the aircraft in question was grounded in ZZZ1 for at least X days; waiting on a part. This whole incident could have been avoided; if the Captain investigated before we closed the door and went to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: B737-800 Flight Attendant reported a fume event during boarding lasted into the initial part flight. Cabin crew experienced physiological symptoms and was treated for many days.