elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was the Radar controller for Area 1; Sector 6. This is the only sector that is radar-to-radar with ZMA (Miami Center); an adjacent facility to the northwest. Similar sounding calls signs were a factor; but the highest contributing factor was the frequency issues (specifically 135.7). I had told the Controller in Charge (CIC)/Supervisor (SUP) that the frequencies were bad. For majority of the session; I had to toggle between the MAIN and STANDBY transmitters and receivers. Some aircraft could hear me; with no problems at all; but other aircraft would check-on four or five times. I would respond; but they continued to check on; as if I had not answered. I was stepping down Aircraft X; which was cutting across my airspace direct to ZZZZZ Intersection. Aircraft Y entered my airspace later during the session and checked on frequency. I had made 2 transmissions to Aircraft X; to descend and maintain FL330; to start the descent. Aircraft Y took the descent and descended to FL330 from FL350; but was still in ZMA sector 62 airspace.The frequency outages have been a common problem for quite some time now. Management has elevated this safety hazard to higher authorities; but to no avail. There are blind spots in the airspace and most days the frequencies are terrible; specifically 135.7; 134.3 and 118.15. This radio communication issue has been a problem for a long time and presents a safety hazard. It also adds unnecessary workload for both the controllers and the pilots. Both parties have to continually repeat transmissions.




Synopsis: San Juan Center Controller reported radio problems and similar sounding aircraft call signs that led to an aircraft take another's descent clearance; which then became an airspace violation.
Date: 201201
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Snow removal in progress; Tower Supervisor; after two reports of poor braking action; was coordinating with Airport Operations vehicles via walkie talkie. Tower Supervisor advised Airport Operations; 'Proceed on Runway XXR and we'll consider it closed.' Airport Operations acknowledged and all Tower positions consider Runway XXR closed. We performed our functions on the runway closure checklist. I cut a D-ATIS showing Runway XXR closed. At this time; Runway XXL and Runway YY were also closed. Runway XX was the only available runway. I coordinated with the Tower Supervisor and decided to advertise RNAV XXC approach. We did not have the RVR minimums for that approach; so 3 or 4 aircraft began to hold east of the airport waiting for a runway to open. The crew on Runway XXR were still sanding when our relief can to get us out. All positions were being changed. Ground Control was first and he briefed his relief that XXR; XXL; and YY closed. I began to run the checklist with my relief and noted to him and the Supervisor that Runway XXR was not contained in the Red Box on the Information Display. I asked the Tower Supervisor to call Airport Management to get the closure into the box and comply with the runway closure checklist. He then stated that Runway XXR wasn't really closed; but considered closed. This confused us all. This was a hole punch into all the safety systems we have recently put into effect. Is the runway closed or not? Another issue on this shift was the Tower Supervisor using the walkie talkie with the airport vehicles. Airport vehicles use this as an open coordination frequency with both the Tower and all the snow removal equipment. This is very loud and distracting. On several occasions when I was working Ground Control 1 that night I missed calls and misunderstood aircraft. With de-icing being unusually busy it was a challenge. I would like to suggest that the FAA get a head set for the Tower Supervisor to use when snow removal. It would eliminate the distraction. Also; there are extreme amounts of coordination between the Tower Supervisor; Local Control; and Ground Control during snow removal. It works; however; it is confusing sometimes; especially when Flight Data/Clearance Delivery is cutting D-ATIS for changing weather; runway closures; and reading clearances.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a confused runway closure event during snow removal operations; noting that the communications via radio between the Tower and airport vehicles was loud and distracting.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Passenger was pre-boarded with MEDA. (SEQUAL Eclipse portable continuous flow oxygen concentrator) Flight Attendant A notified Captain of medical device being used during flight. Passenger's mother was asked to store device under seat in front of child. Passenger mother complied. Oxygen device turned off because it doesn't work on its side. Passenger mother notified us of the dilemma. We Flight; Attendant A and Flight Attendant B; decided it would be best if child could use required device during flight. We told passenger mother to leave the device upright in front of the child and that we would write this instance up. Flight Attendant Manual states this device is approved for use in AC. Doesn't fit under our seats in the upright position; therefore it cannot be properly stowed. Passenger needs to have the device on. Hmmmm.




Synopsis: A Q400 Flight Attendant reports asking a passenger using a portable continuous flow oxygen concentrator to place it under the seat in front of her but is later informed that the device will not operate in the horizontal position. The passenger is allowed to use the device in the up right position for the flight.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: WHP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D WHP
ATC / advisory: Tower WHP
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm a student pilot and was flying solo; practicing closed traffic at Whiteman Airport. It was a busy day with multiple aircraft in the general area; including other students working a closed traffic pattern. When abeam the tower on the downwind leg in the left traffic pattern; I had put in a request for landing with the Tower. The Tower cleared me for landing as number 3; saying '(call sign) number three follow the Cessna opposite downwind.' I acknowledged 'number three for landing (call sign).' I looked around in the pattern; and thought I saw two aircraft; one crossing the fence and one on final; so I turned to base for landing. That's when I received a call from the Tower; 'what are you doing (call sign)?' I looked to my right and saw an aircraft; the Cessna I was supposed to be following; on a right traffic pattern on base; approximately a half mile to my 1 o'clock. The pilot of the other aircraft announced he was doing a 360 left; and the Tower told me to land right way; so I did so; turning to final early to avoid the other aircraft. I believe the error was my lack of familiarity with the phrase 'opposite downwind'; a phrase that had not come up in my previous instruction. Because I didn't fully understand the request; I believed I was told I was number three after a Cessna on left pattern. I thought I had both aircraft in sight proceeded to turn base for landing; and did not look out in the right hand pattern direction for conflicting traffic.




Synopsis: C172 solo student pilot is instructed by the Tower that he is 'number three follow the Cessna opposite downwind.' The student does not comprehend the meaning of this clearance and turns base in conflict with the aircraft he was to follow.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: hot; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Kodiak 100
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I landed a single engine turbo prop Kodiak 100 off airport in a field. This is my recollection of events.I was called earlier in the day to fly a Part 91 flight. I was the sole person onboard and was well rested. I showed up at the airport on time and did a thorough preflight; pulled the plane from the hangar; started engines; taxi; and take off as normal. I climbed heading northeast; and was climbing through 7000 ft.; so I was approx. 2000 ft. AGL; and was just leaving the Class D airspace.I first felt the nose drop and all my attention turned to the plane; it came back up as I was looking over instruments; then I felt the engine surge and drop off about 3 more times. As this was happening I decided to turn back toward the airport. I had been instructed to report leaving the Delta airspace; I had just left the airspace when this happened; so as I turned back I reported an engine failure and gave position and intended landing site. They sent emergency services.I immediately started scanning for a place to land as I knew I would not glide back to the airport; first I picked a field in front of me; but because it was too congested near that airport; and it was too close to be sure that I would make it; then seeing power lines and obstacles I chose a different field at my 9 o'clock and I did an s-turn to line up my position and lose altitude. As I flared to touch down; the stall warning alert sounded and I touched down un-eventfully. I then noticed the engine still running at low power and did a normal shut down; secured the plane and shut off fuel tanks and electrical. I then called Tower to inform them I was down safe with no damage or injury; County Sherriff deputy also arrived and made a report.




Synopsis: Kodiak 100 pilot reported experiencing an engine failure and landed off-airport.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Angle of Attack Vane
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: It seems that my meeting inbound Aircraft X at gate X resulted in a broken AOA (Angle of Attack) vein. I feel that I was far enough from the aircraft to rotate the cabin comfortably however I did notice something fall to the ground before my final parked position. I notified the team lead when I got back to the gate area. I saw the video of the jet bridge movement and while I still feel comfortable with my actions; based on the angle of the video; I was notified that I rotated the cabin to close to the aircraft which resulted in the incident.




Synopsis: Gate Agent reported damaging the aircraft AOA vane while positioning the jet bridge.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On takeoff roll above 100 kts; I noticed what I thought was a flock of small white birds on the departure end of the runway. After VR and the 'Rotate' call; I realized in the rotation that it was not birds; but a dust devil; tornado type rotation of trash and papers. It was quite large; just left of centerline; but covering most of the runway width; and spanning well above our altitude. The winds seemed to be quite intense; judging by the speed of the trash whirling around. As the airplane began to lift off; I noticed a vibration on the airplane; possibly a buffet; and the airplane did not seem to be climbing as expected. I began to reach for the thrust levers but was forced back to the yoke when we hit the dust devil and the airplane aggressively rolled to the left. The captain and I both applied aggressive roll input in the opposite direction. The aircraft was slow to respond; but eventually did and returned to level flight. I did not have time to look at the instruments and notate the roll angle or airspeed loss; but there were no aural or tactile alerts from the aircraft. Once through the dust devil; the aircraft climbed normally; and the rest of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported encountering a dust devil shortly after takeoff that resulted in an uncommanded aggressive roll to the left.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: SR22
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were training on Delmar. Aircraft X was at 4;000 east of OKB. Aircraft Y was coming missed off OKB climbing eastbound toward Aircraft X. I told the trainee to stop Aircraft Y at 3;000 to ensure separation. The trainee cleared Aircraft X for the visual and switched him to the Tower.Even though; we hadn't ensured separation from the two aircraft; I thought Aircraft X would pull away from Aircraft Y because of his speed and turn toward the airport. Instead; the Aircraft X slowed down and widened out to the north. I told the trainee to turn Aircraft Y below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) to ensure separation. We then had to call Tower and ask them to square the base turn of Aircraft X so he wouldn't turn back into our Aircraft Y.In the future; I need to consider trainee hours when working a position. I'm really vigilant at ensuring separation; however; when the trainee cleared Aircraft X for the visual; even though I wouldn't have done it so soon; I assumed that Aircraft X would turn toward the airport and wouldn't slow until he was close to the runway. I shouldn't assume this; every pilot flies their plane differently; however I didn't even consider Aircraft X would widen out to the north.The trainee definitely learned that they need to control this approach to ensure separation from OKB.




Synopsis: SCT Instructor while instructing developmental had a loss of separation due to developmental clearing an aircraft for a visual approach while another aircraft was in close proximity.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSPD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZSPD
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Rotation
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were instructed to block rows 60 and 61 for an aft CG condition. The published CG was 24.8% and the Stabilizer trim setting was 5.8 Units. At VR -171 KTS I attempted to rotate normally but; the airplane did not rotate. I continued the back movement of the control column and had to exert at least TWICE the back pressure I normally would and the aft movement of the yoke was approaching the aft limit when the nose wheel finally left the runway. As soon as we were airborne I began to apply nose-up trim in one second deliberate applications. It took THREE one second applications until the yoke returned to a normal displacement from neutral. The actual CG of the airplane was obviously much further forward than what we were told in writing by load planning. Also; I could tell the airplane was much heavier than we were told (Leaving the gate 866.0). The initial pitch attitude was only about 13 degrees vs. 15+ degrees for an aircraft at this weight; and when I began to accelerate at 3;000 FT AGL for flap retraction and reduced the pitch attitude to 8 degrees like I normally do it resulted in a descent rate of about 300 FPM vs. a climb of about 500 FPM. The aircraft weight was higher than we were told and the CG was much further forward than we were told. Also; we noticed after departure that the Stabilizer tank was loaded with fuel and the Center Tank was NOT at capacity per the normal fuel loading procedure described the 747 CBT training materials.




Synopsis: Advised by load planners to block off aft rows of seats due to an allegedly aft CG and given a takeoff trim setting commensurate with that CG location the pilot flying of a B747 was unable to rotate at VR with normal elevator input and was required to apply several seconds of nose up pitch trim in order to rotate and lift off.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MSY
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Due to traffic volume from diverts from the Houston area to MSY I requested; and got control of Runway 20 indefinitely from Local. I did this so I could have one flow for traffic exiting and taxiing out to Runway 11. This also gave me more surface area to park aircraft on the movement areas while they were waiting out their delays or for their gate. I had Aircraft X taxi south on Runway 20 from Uniform to exit at Echo because their gate just opened up. I failed to advise Local Control that I would be having an aircraft taxiing south on Runway 20 that would be crossing the extended departure path of Runway 11. Local cleared an aircraft for takeoff on Runway 11 and the departure overflew the taxiing aircraft by approximately 1;000 feet. This safety event occurred because of position overload due to complexity and traffic saturation.In order to prevent a reoccurrence of this event more attention needs to be given by supervision to properly manage positions and personnel. I was working Ground Control combined with Controller in Charge (CIC) and had a newly certified developmental working CD who was trying his best to help me out. The position overload didn't happen instantaneously; but instead built up over several hours with numerous indicators of what was to come. Volume and complexity warranted a Front Line Manager (FLM) in the tower and Ground Control Assist staffed.




Synopsis: MSY Ground Controller reported of having a separation issue with a taxing aircraft and a departing aircraft. Taxing aircraft was on a runway owned by Ground Control; but the aircraft crossed the extended departure path of a crossing runway. Controller stated the safety event occurred due to a position overload and to complexity and traffic saturation.