elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the RADAR at Sector X. Traffic was picking up and I got a D-Side. A CRJ2 departed a Class B and was filed up on jetroute. I initially climbed him to FL280. After being level for several minutes he requested FL340. I told him it would be about 3 minutes to clear eastbound traffic at FL290. I physically pointed out the plane climbing to FL340. As the CRJ2 got closer to Area 4's airspace; the A320 was either PVD'ed or the handoff was initiated. The aircraft [was] leaving FL287 climbing to FL320. My D-Side coordinated with Sector Y while I issued clearances to other aircraft. My D-Side told me to climb the CRJ2 to FL310 with respect to the A320. I had already begun climbing the CRJ2 to FL340 so I amended the altitude to FL310 and then once more to FL290 realizing the A320 was climbing slowly through FL290. FL310 was in the datablock as it was coordinated that I would climb him to the altitude and Sector Y accepted the handoff that way. I had the CRJ2 highlighted so I knew that he wasn't climbing to FL310 but rather I was to climb him underneath. I issued several other clearances to other aircraft and Sector Z's D called me to say that the A320 had descended back to FL290. At this time Sector W's D was also on the line and I told the CRJ2 to climb and maintain FL300 and expedite. The pilot questioned the clearance so I told him to turn to a 360 heading and climb to FL310 and to report out of FL300. At some point in the transmission to the CRJ2 I managed to tell both Sector Z and Sector W that I was climbing the CRJ2 since I realized they didn't know what was happening. I feel like my not yet 3 years of experience solo on the RADAR doesn't quite qualify me to figure out a solution but what I realized is this was a very unsafe situation that ended up with nearly 8 controllers involved between 4 sectors and 3 areas. Multiple things were being coordinated with not enough time between to figure out what the most current clearance should be and I ended up reacting to a situation rather than controlling it.




Synopsis: Enroute Developmental described an unsafe event when multiple sectors were involved in coordination and/or lack there of resulting in the occurrence.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cruising at FL280 and were instructed by Center to cross 20 miles south of MZZ VOR at FL260 and increase speed from 270 KIAS to 280 KIAS. I read back the instructions. I'm not sure if I read back FL260 or FL200. But the First Officer set FL200 as the altitude to descend to and I verified. As we were descending through FL250 to meet the crossing restriction ATC asked us to maintain FL260. I queried him on our clearance; which I thought; and the First Officer thought; was FL200; but he said it was FL260. He then asked us to level off at FL240. We continued the flight with no other issues.The way the Controller read the instructions; there were a lot of 'numbers' I had to remember and I feel I mixed them up. With the 20 mile crossing restriction; the altitude change the speed increase all in one breath; I mixed them up and instead of FL260 we used FL200. Another threat to the flight was that we were on our 5th of 6 legs for the day and had been dealing with winter operations the whole day making the day feel longer. I learned that next time I get a long clearance in one breath I should double check with the controller to make sure I read back all the instructions correctly. I should also double check with the First Officer to make sure he heard what I heard.




Synopsis: EMB145 Captain reports misunderstanding a descent clearance with a crossing restriction based on distance and a speed adjustment. The First Officer misunderstands in a similar fashion and the clearance is not questioned; resulting in as descent below assigned altitude.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A Cessna 172; first flight with a new engine break-in. All run up indications were normal; and the engine was operating fine. On departure; we proceeded to the VOR to do some holding. After a couple of laps in the hold; the engine started to lose power. Adjusting throttle then appeared to have no effect on RPM. We moved the throttle to full open and full close with no change in the RPM. We [advised ATC]; squawked 7700 and started down to a left base for Runway 28. When we started down; we realized the power was stuck at about 2100-2200 RPM. We widened out slightly to allow us to lose altitude and set up for final for Runway 28. Once we were close enough; and we both felt we had landing assured; we shut down the engine. We glided down the rest of the way and landed safely on Runway 28.


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


Synopsis: C172 flight crew reported a throttle malfunction during a test flight; resulting in an in flight shutdown and return to the departure airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Sector: 24-16Advanced Technologies & Oceanic Procedures (ATOP) combined on midnight configuration.Flight 1 - Aircraft X at FL380Flight 2 - Aircraft Y at FL390XA:35ZAircraft X requests FL390XA:36ZI respond with 'Unable Higher Due Traffic'XA:36ZFlight responded 'Roger'XA:50ZI sent a clearance out to Aircraft X'Maintain FL380; At Time XB:00Z Climb and Maintain FL390; Climb to Reach FL390 by XB:05Z; Report Level FL390'XA:50ZAircraft X Responded 'Wilco'XA:53ZAircraft X Reported level at FL390XA:56ZI asked Aircraft X with a free text message to confirm that they were at FL390 and I stated that I gave them a clearance to maintain FL380 until XB00z due traffic.The traffic was Aircraft Y. Though the aircraft was traffic at the time of the original request at the time Aircraft X climbed the traffic was not a factor though barely.The flight informed me that the plane automatically transferred FL390 to their mode control altitude window. Since they were expecting FL390. The pilot then executed the change and said that it looks like a software issue because the system did not recognize the first part of the clearance to maintain until (time) but instead transferred FL390.I am not sure if this explanation from the pilot was an attempt to cover a mistake or if it really happened but this situation could have been much worse if the two aircraft were 2 or 3 minutes closer together than they were. I; because of experience; added in a buffer to the time of several minutes as is my practice anyway; but if I had not done that this situation might not have been good at all.We should check the software in aircraft X to see if it is compatible with ATOP complex clearances and insure that this does not happen again.




Synopsis: ZNY Controller issues a clearance to be started at a specific time. The receiving aircraft acknowledges the climb clearance. A few minutes later the pilot reports level and newly assigned altitude. The Controller is confused because the aircraft is level at assigned altitude 4 minutes before the aircraft was to begin its climb. Controller had additional traffic he was concerned with and this was the reason for the delay in the climb. Luckily the Controller added a buffer to the time to climb and there was not a loss of separation.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Mavic Mini
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Hovering (UAS)
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Reporter function: Remote PIC (UAS); Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Other Person
Result: Flight Crew Returned to Home (UAS); General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: With the purpose of recreational flying with my DJI Mini 2 (drone); I took off from the parking lot [of a sports stadium] where I knew there would be a great deal of open space (parking lots) and could see cool visuals of the stadium in flight. I do not have any form of business or social media channel that would make me a business in my drone use.Being new to recreational drone use I was unaware of authorization requirements in the area of both being near the ZZZ airport as well as the stadiums. Thankfully security staff from [security company] were swift to detect my mistake and find me in person to instruct me to land my drone immediately to avoid any punishment. Limiting my total fly time; thankfully; to 11 minutes.All of which were kind in our conversation as I landed my drone and they instructed me not to do this again as this is within Class B airspace (ZZZ) and Authorization Zones specific to the stadiums as well. They ensured me I was not in trouble; as this was a warning; if done again than punishment is likely. Representatives from the stadium [and security company] took photo of my driver's license as well as the staffer from the stadium in order to have on file if I were to attempt to fly in their area again. We then all left to go on with our days. I was very thankful we had a pleasant exchange as they quickly made me realize my mistake and brought the drone down.I hope my forward thinking in reporting this and my transparency are taken into consideration as to any pending fine/threats/warnings that may take place due to this incident. This was certainly a learning experience and I am already looking further into educating myself about drone regulations further before flying again as further corrective action.




Synopsis: Recreational Drone Pilot reported inadvertently flying within Class B airspace from the parking lot of a stadium complex. The Pilot was unaware of the incursion until advised by security personnel.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was observing the operation on the South side of the tower.  Aircraft X landed Runway 25L; exited to join Taxiway H Westbound; and was now being taxied across Runway 25R at Taxiway T by the LC1 Controller.  Aircraft Y was in position on Runway 25R.  When Aircraft X had crossed the majority of Runway 25R; LC1 cleared Aircraft Y for take off.  Aircraft X had stopped and not turned onto Taxiway B; Aircraft X still had a good portion of their tail over the Runway 25R hold bars when Aircraft Y was cleared for take off.  Aircraft X was just fully clearing Runway 25R when Aircraft Y had rotated; and was passing Taxiway P.  I believe that the LC1 Controller knew that Aircraft X was still partially on the runway; but cleared Aircraft Y for take off anyway.  Recommendation; I recommend a change in the safety culture at LAX ATCT; because it doesn't appear that they got the memo about the FAA being safety focused.  Quite simply; it appears that LAX management is willing to 'play the odds' that if they bend/break the rules; the odds say; nothing will happen.




Synopsis: LAX Controller described a potential ground conflict event.  Local Controller cleared an aircraft for take off; prior to crossing traffic being clear of the departure runway.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After working 18 of last 21 days: 6 days on; 2 days off; 6 days on; 1 day off; then 6 days on; I was rescheduled on my last day of this stretch to fly an additional 2 legs and then deadhead one leg. I was originally supposed to fly from a scheduled trip then Dead Head back to my domicile. Scheduling wanted to add a round trip then dead head back to my domicile. I was forced to call in fatigued at an out station after working the flight from my domicile. I just filled out the fatigue report for that flight; however I am filling out a complete repost since I believe we have very grave safety issue with current policies at my airline. If it is decided that fatigue was of a personal nature then pilots are punished by being given an 'occurrence' for that fatigue call. If you obtain 8 'occurrences' in a rolling year you will lose your job. When I was deciding if I was fit for duty and safe to operate a flight yesterday; I had to not only consider how I felt; but also what the company could do to me based on our current fatigue policy. If it is our legal obligation to call in fatigued when we are; then how can we as a pilot group also be punished for following this procedure. Having the company take action against a crew member who is acting on behalf of safety will only lead to pilots not calling in fatigued when they know that they are in fact unsafe to operate a flight. It is the very fact that the company's potential actions against me entered into my decision making process that I am filling out this report. It should not be like this. Company needs to change fatigue policy to make it non-punitive. No pilot should have an occurrence or action taken against them in any form as a result of calling in fatigue.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain called in fatigued on the his sixth day of duty after scheduling added an additional round trip. As a result; the pilot was concerned about disciplinary action.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Controller had to have had a mask on as his communications were muffled and thus hard to understand.  We read back clearance to FL230 and as we were passing through 22;500 he said we were only cleared to FL220. He said to just continue to FL230 and that is what we did. No conflict was noted.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an altitude deviation during climbout and cited communication problems with a Center Controller due to the Controller possibly wearing a face mask.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approximately half-way through the boarding process for flight XXXX; ZZZ- ZZZ1; I was informed by the A Flight Attendant; a passenger had boarded and her cellphone (PED) had begun emitting smoke. Flight attendants had asked the passenger to surrender the PED/cellphone and opened a 'containment bag' and placed the PED inside. When Flight Attendant showed me the PED/cellphone in the containment bag; it looked like a normal cellphone in the OFF mode; no scorch marks; no visible damage; no electrical burning (acrid) smell and it was not emitting smoke at that time. Flight attendants informed me the passenger stated the PED/cellphone had been in contact with water while the Passenger was in ZZZ. Flight attendants asked for further guidance on what procedures were required. I quickly referenced and checked my guidance (FOM; IFOM; Ops Binder; AOM) and could find no guidance as to what procedures to take. I did not have the Flight Attendants review/check their manuals for further guidance and/or procedure(s). I did not attempt to contact Dispatch or Chief Pilot in the Operations Center. We followed the guidance; which came with the containment bag and I instructed the flight attendants to continue to monitor the bag throughout the flight and notify me immediately; if the situation began to deteriorate. The return flight was uneventful.Company ZZZ1 Ops Personnel retrieved the containment bag with PED/cellphone and cleared it through Customs/Immigration and I understand it was returned to its owner. I wrote up the used containment bag in the aircraft logbook and informed Company ZZZ1 Maintenance; it needed to be replaced.


Second narrative: The Flight Attendant came up to the cockpit with a cell phone in hand and a containment bag in the other she said the Passenger said her cell phone was hot and had an odor. We looked in the operations binder and FOM for information about a hot phone; but couldn't find anything. The Flight Attendant followed the directions of the containment bag and issue was resolved.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported a passenger's cell phone overheated emitting smoke was transported in containment bag. Flight crew further reported no procedures available regarding handling of containment bags.