elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Standard EWR4 04L departure: climb maintain 3;000 ft. Upon contact with first departure control on 119.2 we were issued only a climb to 5;000 ft. clearance. Remained on SID. Next controller; 120.4; issued a right turn to 090 and climb to 10;000 ft. and then shortly after excitedly asks about what are we doing? We respond that we are in a right turn for 090 hdg and climbing to 10;000 ft. He sounds flustered and revises our climb clearance to climb to 8;000 ft. End of discussion. No verbal threats from ATC! My speculation: Almost always on this SID the first departure controller turns us right to 040 hdg and climbs us. As we were still not cleared to leave the SID and headed westerly when switched to 120.4; I'm guessing the second controller was surprised we were not already in a right turn as is most usual.




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving confusing altitude and heading instructions on departure from EWR.
Date: 201812
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
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 Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a call from the Purser while in cruise flight at 37;000 ft in reference to a female passenger in seat 14E complaining about the passenger in seat 14F touching her while she was sleeping. Female passenger exchanged words with the passenger in 14F and asked him to knock it off. Female passenger was traveling with her husband who was seated in seat 14D. The female passenger traded seats with her husband. I asked the Purser to reseat the female passenger and her husband in order to diffuse the situation that was escalating. I reviewed the FOM and based on the information that I received from the Purser; I contacted [dispatch] via ACARS and requested that Management and law enforcement meet the jet on arrival. Law enforcement detained passenger in 14F. After speaking with female passenger and her husband and extending an apology; I discovered that this incident could have been declared as a security threat level 2 vice 1.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported passenger misconduct enroute led to law enforcement detaining the passenger on arrival.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After CEDES on the MOD 5 Arrival we were cleared via the FMS Bridge Visual 28R route; but not the altitude profile. Our descent was controlled by ATC and our airspeed was gradually slowed to as low as 160 KTS to sequence behind a B777 landing 28R. This left us high between GAROW and JANNY and the First Officer elected to configure to landing configuration there to facilitate a vertical path correction. We ended up rolling out on final well below glideslope. Tower issued an altitude alert and an altimeter setting of 29.71. We had set 29.91 when descending below FL180 as understood and read back in response to ATC. The First Officer asked about whether we should go-around and I told him to level off and intercept the glideslope. This was accomplished and a TDZ landing resulted. At the time my feeling was that we were correcting to the glide-slope from below on center line and on speed with CAVU weather. In retrospect and debrief we both agreed that a go-around was called for in this situation. We both felt rushed throughout the approach and the proper response would have been to go-around and set up again.




Synopsis: B757 flight crew reports getting low during the FMS Bridge Visual to Runway 28R at SFO; after getting high due to ATC speed restrictions. In order to get back on profile the aircraft was configured early and descends below the normal approach path resulting in a low altitude alert from the Tower. The approach is continued to a normal landing.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was climbing out of approximately 6;500 feet when I started to notice the smell of a wildfire. I surveyed the area and did not see any wildfires in the immediate vicinity. A short time later; I started recognizing the symptoms of hypoxia; namely confusion; short-term memory loss; shortness of breath and blurred vision. At this point; we were nearing our assigned altitude of 9;000 MSL. I immediately requested lower and was assigned 7;000. During our descent; I started planning a diversion to a VFR field. It was at this point that I should have notified ATC of my symptoms; but for reasons that are still unknown; I did not inform them of the exact circumstances surrounding my diversion. NorCal Approach and Oakland Center were incredibly accommodating with my requests for lower altitude. The flight ended uneventfully at [an alternate airport] and we continued the rest of the journey the following day.During my debrief; I hypothesized that the onset of hypoxia was accelerated by the ambient smoke in the air. I also hypothesized that given the wind direction; this smoke was likely from the many wildfires burning in the [mountains]. Perhaps a wildfire area should be added to the standard weather briefing. For pilots of non-pressurized aircraft; smoke in the air lowers the altitude where pilots will start suffering from hypoxia. I realize that the standard weather briefing is extremely lengthy as it is; but hypoxia is a serious issue and I think everything should be done to protect pilots from it.




Synopsis: A general aviation pilot reported symptoms of hypoxia due to smoke from widespread fires in Northern California led to a diversion.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PRC.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Other Flight school
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other CFI checkride
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PRC
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The event occurred during a CFI checkride in the helicopter. I had just finished a ground and flight. The purpose was to accomplish full down autorotations in the pattern for the active runway (current runway was 12 as noted in ATIS). I got my ATIS code and contacted PRC ground for clearance. To the best of my ability I gave my position at the flight school ramp and ATIS code. Ground cleared us by saying 'cleared to taxi to runway 12 via taxiway E4'. At that point I thought I was cleared for the active runway; repeated the clearance back to ground and proceeded to taxi off the school ramp via E4 to runway 12. Prior reaching runway 12 hold lines I looked to my left to see a Cessna on very short final and took action to abruptly stop the helicopter. To my best recollection I was as close as I could be to the hold lines without my rotor blades being over the hold lines. I recounted with my passenger and he agreed there was confusion. I contacted ground to ask if they had cleared us for the runway with landing traffic. They reply that I was not cleared for the runway. I replied with '…holding short of runway 12.'




Synopsis: Helicopter pilot reported an NMAC with a Cessna at PRC airport when he misunderstood his taxi clearance.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had a departure on a vector climbing to 23;000 ft. I was working the Handoff side. The radar controller recognized he was climbing a little fast and might become a conflict with a point out we had been given. He stopped the departure at 21;000 ft. At this point they had a lot of space between them and the point out was in the vicinity of 20;000 ft. We did not update the data block. I was working on point outs and was no longer worried about the traffic conflict. Based upon the climb rates I felt very comfortable with what happened. I was also on the busier side. The other sector called and asked if our traffic was climbing out to 23;000 ft. I told her we stopped our guy at 21;000 ft. A minute later I called to make a different point out and they asked us how we separated those two. I exclaimed 'We stopped him at 210.' The controller said 'Our guy wasn't out of 210.' She then asked 'Is that a 3 mile zone.' I told her 'I thought they were good.' This was my belief all along. She began to debate with me. As I had other significantly higher duties I said 'I thought it was good. If you have to write it up; write it up.'I told the Radar Controller what the other controller had said. We were both were surprised. He exclaimed 'That is a 3 mile zone.' I called them back and said it was in the 3 mile zone. She said 'They didn't have a 1;000 ft.' I do not recall how I responded. At this point I still felt it was a non-issue; as I do now. I heard the other facility called and lodged a complaint against us; so I am filling this out now. I am very sure their traffic was well out of 21;000 ft when our traffic reached 21;000 ft.




Synopsis: ZNY Center Controller reported that an adjacent sector reported them for having less than the required separation between two aircraft.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class C AUS
ATC / advisory: Tower AUS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on a visual approach to 17R into AUS; Tower had a Company aircraft in position and holding on the runway. Traffic was also reported to us of a helicopter arriving from the west to land and we reported him in sight. Descending through 500 feet we still had not received a landing clearance and Company on the runway had not been cleared for takeoff yet. A moment later he came on the radio and alerted Tower that he was still holding. Tower then cleared him for takeoff and us to land. By this time we are now through maybe 400 to even 300 feet. I felt at this point in time this was not going to work out and called for a go-around. Tower gave us a turn to 260 and a climb to 3000 feet. The issues during this go-around were that I did not want to over fly Company or offset right with the helicopter; although in sight was approaching from our right. I therefore began an immediate climbing right hand turn inside the approaching helicopter and away from our Company now rolling down the runway. I feel that maybe Tower might have forgotten about the airplane holding in position as there was certainly a lot of radio traffic.In this case; a call to Tower from us or even the aircraft holding on the runway sooner would have helped; but again; the frequency was busy.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported executing a go-around in AUS when it appeared departing traffic would not clear the runway in time.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine Thrust Reverser
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Went down line for a thrust reverser fault on Number 1 engine.  Upon arrival; contacted Maintenance control for information. Was informed that contract maintenance found the Inboard Thrust Reverser sleeve not stowed.  Examined the logbook for more information.  Original LP (Log Page) Stated 'Number 1 Eng. reverser light on.'  Subsequent log page by contract maintenance 'TRIED UNSUCCESSFULLY TO LOCKOUT NUMBER 1 TR (Thrust Reverser). BLOCKER DOORS PARTIALLY DEPLOYED.' Went to pull up MEL (Minimum Equipment List) for 'Reverser Light.' Read procedure which said to deactivate thrust reverser; downgrade CAT (Category) III; and Placard.  Printed out deactivation procedures in operations office and went out to the aircraft and followed every step.  Called Maintenance Control and verified all lockout procedures were followed and filled out log page according to Maintenance Control instructions. Maintenance Control told me to write down MEL.  I failed to realize that Maintenance Control gave me a different MEL number than we thought we were accomplishing.  I was never asked to check the opposite engine for operation and it is not required for MEL X; which we believed we should be performing.I believe contract maintenance pulled the Engine Number 2 Circuit breakers for it's Thrust reverser in error and did not document it.  I missed performing an operational check on the Number 2 engine because I was following procedures for MEL X which has you lock out the effected engine; but NOT check the opposite engine for Trust reverser operation.  I did not realize that the Maintenance Controller had me performing a different MEL; which DOES require checking the opposing engine for operation after locking out the effected engine.  I believe the pilot missed the Number 2 Engine circuit breakers out but not collared; and the subsequent landing the thrust reversers did not deploy on Number 2 the engine.I believed we performed all procedures correctly; but performed an incorrect MEL by accident.                                      Make sure we have better communication with Maintenance Control and read the procedure we are doing at the same as the Controller.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician performed incorrect MEL (Minimum equipment List) on B737-700 aircraft under direction of Maintenance Control.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the morning of [Date]; a [helicopter] that was conducting a power line patrol for [company] incurred a mid-air near miss with an Agriculture Aircraft. It is unknown what the crop duster mission was but comments from crew are that it appeared to be flying enroute along the same power line as the [helicopter] crew and not engaged with any spraying operations. When the aircraft was observed; the crew made an abrupt flight control input to avoid contact and then returned to base once clear of traffic.It should be noted that the TCAS on [the helicopter] was installed and operational but did not go off so we suspect the air tractor had no transponder or if equipped; it was not turned on.




Synopsis: Reporter stated that while conducting a power line patrol; a helicopter had a near midair collision with an agricultural aircraft that was not observed on the TCAS unit in the helicopter.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Waiting for VFR for training. Monitored [our destination] weather which predicted VFR at XA00; then XB00. When weather rose to 600 FT and 3 miles; we left to drive to the airplane at XA10. After pre-flight; we took off; but there was a ceiling of 650 FT MSL. We stayed low and proceeded south to [our destination]. As we arrived on a left downwind for Runway 36; the weather deteriorated; rain; visibility 2 miles; fog. I turned across the runway and entered a left downwind for Runway 18. At this time I considered returning to the departure airport; however; the deteriorating weather had closed in behind us also. At this point; I considered my only option was going IFR and requesting an approach to [our destination]; or landing on Runway 18 at [an alternate]. I decided to land. During my turn at low altitude to final; the left wing hit pine tree tops. The landing was uneventful. Upon examining the aircraft; it was observed that the outer half of the left wing had skin damage; as did the aileron; and later we observed that the pitot tube was not against the bottom of the wing.What caused the problem:Believe the weather forecast. We should have waited until it became VFR before making the flight. Anticipating that the weather would continue to improve as it was doing that morning. The forecast was for VFR at XA00; XB00; XC00; XD00; and XE00. It actually turned VFR at XF00.How to prevent recurrence:Do not fly until weather [is] good enough. The last decision to land was also a mistake. We should have gone IFR; declared an emergency and made an approach to [our destination]. The airplane is not certified for IFR flight; however; it has sufficient instruments and radios that it could have made the approach.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports departing for a short flight in less than VFR conditions to find the destination airport weather deteriorating even further. The decision is made to continue with a visual approach at very low altitude resulting in contact with pine trees and damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine running rough; headed to [nearby airport] for a precautionary landing. As I got closer to land the engine was running rougher until I reduced power. After landing I noticed that the plane had a lot of oil all over it. After the cowling was removed; the cylinder had blown.No other hazard involved with the incident. No damage to persons or aircraft beyond the lost oil or cylinder.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C182 reported diverting due to a rough running engine. After landing; it was discovered that a cylinder had failed.