elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X; we were with ABQ center when he said expect a reroute into Denver and I looked at my copilot and said; watch; they are going to put us on a 90 degree turn and run us through the weather; and that is exactly what happened. At this point; I became verbal and wanted a good reason why we can't stay in the clear 30 minutes outside of Denver. ATC basically said Denver just closed the southeast arrivals. I said something like you have got to be kidding me; if I had 10 choices; they gave us the 10th choice between two lines of weather with moderate turbulence and mountain wave and I again was displeased and wanted a good explanation. He said TMU (Traffic Management) is doing this to everyone; so I asked for the number; and talked with a [controller] who was in charge at the time. I have been with the airline for XX years and seeing more and more of this TMU routing that is always 4 to 6 hours behind schedule and dispatchers agreed. The reroute added 200 miles and 40 minutes and not one controller asks the question; 'Can you do this' new route? I had plenty of fuel and that's why we did the route; but things would have been much different with minimum fuel. I am still trying to figure out why Denver closed SE arrivals because the weather we did deal with was nothing compared to what we saw on our radar in Denver. Maybe we should add more flights.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported ATC turning them through a very small area which had moderate turbulence and mountain waves due to surrounding weather.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I originally put the [Air Carrier] aircraft to join the arrival and the pilot complied. I later had the aircraft turn an additional 15 degrees right to parallel adjacent airspace. With winds; the final heading was 316. Approximately 95 NM southwest of XXXXX Intersection; I advised [the aircraft] of an area of moderate to extreme precipitation from the pilot's 10 o'clock to his 2 o'clock position; and extending an additional 25 NM along the pilot's route of flight. I advised the pilot to deviate right and included that all other aircraft had previously deviated right. Approaching JAYEE; [the aircraft] called and requested to deviate. I initially instructed the aircraft to stand-by; and then addressed the deviation. I told the aircraft to deviate right of course and he told me that he was going to deviate left (putting the aircraft into adjacent airspace). I called for my supervisor and explained the situation. I told [the aircraft] that a right deviation would be approved; and for the aircraft to advise when he could accept a heading to rejoin the arrival. The pilot again did not comply. I then told him to make a left turn to fly heading 050. The pilot was confused and continued to argue. I again issued the left turn to fly heading 050. My D-side pointed out the aircraft to the adjoining sector and included the specifics of my control instructions. The aircraft ignored my instructions. My supervisor then keyed and instructed the aircraft to reverse course; whereby he replied that he would fly a 300 or 330 heading. The aircraft was then handed off and shipped to the next sector. My D-side then called them and explained the potential of future issues regarding this aircraft.




Synopsis: According to a Center Controller an air carrier aircraft ignored heading assignments that the Controller issued for weather avoidance and then became confused and argued with the Controller.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was sitting on the D-side at 22/31/60 combined. R-side gave frequency change to Aircraft X. Aircraft X took frequency then quickly came back to say 'Center; we just almost had a mid air; did you see that guy?' To which the R-side responded; 'No; I see him now coming out behind you.'Aircraft Y was on a 1200 code; no data block information was shown; no traffic alert went off; and the target wasn't observed until after Aircraft X brought it to our attention. At the time of the event; the sectors were combined and fairly busy with lots of VFR traffic in the surrounding area.Split 22 out from 31/60 when there's moderate volume at 22.




Synopsis: ZDC Center Controller reported a NMAC with an aircraft they had just given a frequency change to and a VFR aircraft they did not see.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30; Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Captain was pilot flying; First Officer pilot monitoring. ATIS info approach and landing RNAV VISUAL RWY 19L. From heading 170 degrees and east of TRROP and upon receipt of visual contact confirmation with LAS; Approach cleared [us] direct TRROP; 'Cleared for RNAV VISUAL RWY 19L approach.' Approaching TRROP they then handed [us] off to Final Controller who then cleared us direct LEMNZ; 'Cross LEMNZ above 3;500 feet for helicopter traffic; cleared for the visual 19L.' This would have required placing LEMNZ into the FMGC flight plan page while inside of TRROP and there was insufficient time to do so while maintaining situational and traffic awareness. LEMNZ in not noted on the [special; company tailored] approach chart and manual construction is not authorized. Conflicting requests by ATC should be avoided in high-density airports even in VMC.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew; cleared to; 'Cross LEMNZ above 3;500 for traffic; cleared for the visual runway 19L' at LAS was at a loss to do so as LEMNZ was not part of their FMGC flight plan route and they are not authorized to manually construct it.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: As the X Flight Attendant I felt very uncomfortable sitting next to a passenger that during the times I was next to him; he constantly removed his mask to either eat or drink. And I mean during taxi; takeoff and landing. I stayed away for as long as I could. I only sat down when it was required of me. Not once during cruising altitude did I sit next to him.At some point during flight he was sitting in my assigned seat and fell asleep in it.  The A FA asked him to move back to his seat. I hope we can either make sure the X FA on this aircraft sit alone or next to another FA.  At least a FA would respect the fact that she/he should not remove his/her mask next to me in such close proximity.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported being assigned to a passenger seat next to a customer that continually removed their face mask.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Rejected takeoff due to  nose wheel steering failure. On power up airplane veered sharply to the right. We did not get any malfunction notifications. We aborted the takeoff and safely returned to the gate.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported loss of nose wheel steering at beginning of takeoff roll. Takeoff was rejected and the aircraft returned to the gate.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to descend via the arrival except maintain 12;000 ft. We were cruising at 24;000 ft northeast of MOMAR. We began to experience turbulence that resembled wake. At that point in time I was under the impression we were cleared to 12;000 ft. I selected Altitude Intervention to begin a descent out of the turbulence. I selected Altitude Intervention a second time to begin the descent. The crossing attitudes were erased at MOMAR due to selecting ALT Intervene. During both presses of the ALT Intervene the Captain and I VVMI'd.  We descended below the published altitude at MOMAR.


Second narrative: We briefed the arrival/approach as scheduled and then almost 40 minutes later we began our descent; and inadvertently double pushed and deleted the crossing restrictions at MOMAR. I didn't catch it until we were already out of 24;000 ft.


Synopsis: B737 Flight Crew reported overshooting an altitude restriction in descent due to a programming error.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAE.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground PAE
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was taxiing for an intersection takeoff. Clearance as I wrote it down: taxi '34L A5 D D1 cross 11'. I read it back and asked for clarification on the 34L A5 part. He repeated above. The intention was for an intersection takeoff at A5. I followed D; then D1 across Runway 11; looking for A5. This area is listed on the airport diagram as a Hot Spot; so I was aware it might be complicated. I found it and proceeded toward it. As I approached the yellow on black sign for A5; I began looking for hold signs for 34L. While looking; the controller communicated to me to stop. As he was speaking; I realized I was about to cross hold short lines and engaged the brakes heavily. I came to a stop with my nose wheel over the line. He directed a 180 and then another. I thanked him for watching out for me (and later called his manager to thank him again). He handed me off to Tower. I performed a runup and received my takeoff clearance. Contributing factors: Expectation that I would see a red runway hold sign. Unusual environment: Runway 11 closed; with fences running across it. [I was] expecting Taxiway A5 to be longer more separated from other portions; lack of recent experience at large airports; lack of recent experience in aircraft model.




Synopsis: A pilot taxied beyond the PAE Runway 34L hold short line on D1 Taxiway because the taxiway was shorter than expected and the signage was not what he had anticipated.
Date: 201202
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had been cleared to taxi but were behind an [RJ] who was parking at a gate ahead of us in the alley. We moved out onto Taxiway A; but had not completely turned onto it when we had to stop and wait for the plane to pull into the gate. While we were waiting; another small jet taxied passed us also on Taxiway A. He had to pull way over to the left to go around us. We were clearly on the same taxi way; our nose very close to the centerline; but we were at an angle so he had minimum room to pass with his moving over to the left. Ground then told us to follow him and said he did not know he was going to do that. Lucky not to have made contact.




Synopsis: When the reporter's B757-200 stopped on a taxiway to allow an aircraft ahead to park at the gate; an anxious commuter jet flight crew elected to narrowly pass them to the left instead of holding.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CRP.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C CRP
ATC / advisory: Tower CRP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Training session on Valley RADAR; a BE20 was a special military flight already airborne maneuvering around MFE at 050 FT. After about 20 minutes so I observed no Data Block or target in the area he should have been in. I made a broadcast for the BE20 and received no response. I reached out to ZHU VCT Sector and asked if they observed the BE20's beacon code in that general area where he might have been. I explained that I had lost communication and target information with that aircraft and asked if they would protect 050 and below for him. The controller observed the beacon code and said they would protect. With continued coordination with that sector; I asked if they would broadcast out to see if the BE20 was on their frequency. After several attempts on frequency and on guard frequency; I was still not able to get a hold of the aircraft. ZHU called back and also advised that they had no luck. I advised my supervisor of the situation and in about 10 to 15 minutes the BE20 was checking in on my frequency. Coordination was accomplished with ZHU to resolve the situation and aircraft landed safely. Being that the aircraft was a military 'special' flight the controllers are not to really question the operation. Therefore these aircraft go about their business without question and limited communication. The NORDO aspect of this situation happens more often than not. I believe this set of 'Special Operations' flights; this one included; is supposed to cancel IFR flight if they leave Valley airspace. Have the aircraft fly under VFR rules and only IFR when weather is prohibiting.




Synopsis: CRP Controller described a NORDO/lost RADAR event involving an IFR 'Special Military Operations' aircraft; the reporter recommending these aircraft operate under VFR rules when weather conditions permit.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: BLEED 1 LEAK EICAS messageCaptain briefed me on the items he saw on the maintenance logbook during preflight. He specified that the previous crew had received a Bleed 1 leak eicas message but the maintenance team couldn't replicate it. Captain mentioned that we should be aware of that same message to show up once we were inflight. I was PM on this leg up to ZZZ1. As we where climbing through FL220 to FL250 we received the EICAS message of BLEED 1 LEAK. Captain called for the QRH. ATC instructed us to climb and maintain FL360; however captain asked me to request level off at FL250 while we ran the QRH. ATC told us to amend the altitude and advise when we were ready to continue climbing. I started performing the items mentioned in the QRH which there is one step (step 2) I missed (XBleed Button PUSHOUT). Right after this message it asks if the message has extinghished and of course it was still present. We waited 3 minutes as stated in QRH but message was still there. We advised ATC and returned to ZZZ for further inspection. As we got to the gate Captain and I started doing a debrief and saw that I had skipped a step in the QRH which might had a small chance of extinguishing the EICAS message. I have reviewed all these events and I believe task saturation was the primary issue in me as PM skipping this step. I should had asked the Captain to take complete control of the communication with ATC and focus on the items mentioned in the QRH. We got task saturated as we expected we might had to return to ZZZ; deviations for weather and communications. During ongoing situations like these I will never forget that I had skipped a step previously. This will greatly help me to just focus on the items that the QRH is mentioning. Another thing is; I can always go back and read the QRH from the beginning; challenging myself to if the item was performed the appropriate way.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported after encountering a bleed malfunction a critical step was missed in the QRH due to task saturation.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying home from work low level over pasture and failed to see power lines. I did not see the lines until I hit them. There was minor damage to the aircraft; damage to the power lines and a fire was started from the downed lines. I have no injuries of any kind. I fly this route almost daily and I think that because it was so familiar I became complacent in my awareness of power lines when flying low. It was a beautiful clear day and I was distracted by the scenery. In the future maintaining a higher altitude and being more alert of obstacles could eliminate the risk of this happening again.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported loss of situational awareness while flying low to the ground that resulted in an impact with power lines.