elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were cleared for the RNAV RNP Z 26 into ABQ from BRKBD. During the approach; Tower notified us of a 'Low Altitude Alert' and asked if we were still on the approach. I was the Pilot Flying and verified we were on the approach. I verified we were still on the VNAV PATH; I crosschecked our next waypoint in the FMC to verify we were still listed as 'At or Above' the specified altitude as well as the EFB Approach Plate. I scanned our Map Display for Terrain information and also visually acquired it.  Everything looked good as far as altitude and terrain was concerned. I got distracted enough that the Pilot Monitoring started to recommend flaps and gear as I got behind the aircraft and was slow to slow down. It wasn't until reviewing the post flight report did I realize the flaps were set below 1000 feet at approximately 800 feet; which was not a stabilized approach.  My only question is; if I were on the Approach and on the VNAV PATH; why did it trigger a Low Altitude Alert from Tower. The notification caused enough of a distraction for me to lose track of my airspeed and resulted into a potential and unrecognized unstabilized approach.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported ATC issued a low altitude alert even though they were in compliance with the glidepath for their approach.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Embraer Legacy 450/500
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the arrival phase into PHX we were given the EAGUL 5 STAR. We were told to descend via and we had 4;000 set in the AAD which was the bottom at GIPSE. The descent was uneventful until we reached HOMRR at 16;000 MSL and our next crossing was at VNOMM between 11;000 MSL and 10;000 MSL. Given the fact that there is only 4.1 NM between HOMRR and VNOMM we were unable to make this crossing restriction and so advised ATC to which they responded okay and to continue descent. On the Garmin GTC it showed at VNOMM the 10;000 MSL was crossed out since the box realized we could not make it either. To me this is setting the crew up for failure and I do not recall during training how we handle this situation in advance to prevent an altitude deviation from occurring. I feel as though I am missing something on the STAR. However it seems as though this is the way it is printed and I do not see how anyone can make this restriction. I did not see any NOTAMs however I could very well have missed one. It did not seem as though ATC was concerned and we were under heavy workload at the time. I am hoping if there is a mistake in the printing on the chart this will help others.




Synopsis: EMB-505 First Officer reports being unable to cross VNOMM between 11;000 MSL and 10;000 MSL on the EAGUL 5 arrival to PHX after crossing HOMRR at 16;000 MSL.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other Pattern; Downwind
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A student that owned his own light sport airplane; with a current Sport Pilots License was being trained by myself in the pattern. We had a number of successful landings. Winds were 280-300 with around 6 knts of wind. We opted for Runway XX at ZZZ. We were practicing approaches with different flap settings. This aircraft has flaperons. We planned to do one more landing to a full stop. On the downwind my student told me that his controls were stuck and did not have lateral control. I took over the controls and confirmed this. The lateral control was down to about 5% of what is normally available; and felt very 'notchy'. This concerned me because I did not want to break them any further. I contacted Tower; let them know we had a control surface issue; and needed to land. I opted to land with no flaps; to not risk making the situation worse with the flaperons. with a combination of limited lateral movement and rudder I managed to get us onto final of [Runway] XX. As  I slowed; I noticed I had less movement available to me. I was able to keep the runway lined up and came in fast. Once I was in ground effect I had effectively zero lateral control. None the less; I had an uneventful landing and was able to taxi to the ramp. The plane is going to get looked at by a mechanic. However I want to bring up how this could be helped in the future. In training we practice engine out emergencies a lot; but never control surface issues. I will be implementing it into my training with students; and maybe should be implemented into the ACS.




Synopsis: Light sport aircraft Instructor reported an uneventful landing due to inflight loss of later control.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 'Political Reference' and other sounds and comments are constantly being transmitted on the emergency radio frequency 121.5 nonstop during a [flight].  I missed two radio calls.  I had to stop monitoring the frequency because it was causing difficulty listening on our assigned ATC frequency.  In the last few years intentional transmitting on 121.5 making goofy sounds; cat sounds; and other silly stuff has gotten really bad.  This makes the usefulness of 121.5 reduced.  I know several pilots have stopped listening on 121.5 because of the distraction.  This has been going on for a few years and seems more common in the northeast USA airspace.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported frequent inappropriate comments on 121.5 interfered with the safe operation of the flight.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation 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 Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Weather began to develop near VYLLA which is our crossing fix with Mazatlan Center. The MMZT Controller called to ask for approval for aircraft deviation. I approved deviation no further west than 25 miles west of VYLLA for active military airspace and indicated the aircraft could not go any further west because it would enter the SELLS ATCAA. I also indicated that aircraft could deviate as far right as they wanted above FL310 which would miss all active military airspace east of VYLLA. MMZT acknowledged and then Aircraft X checked on 23W of VYLLA deviating west on a heading that would enter the SELLS ATCAA. I told the aircraft about the military airspace and declared an emergency on its behalf. Aircraft X was less than 3 NM from the SELLS ATCAA boundary prior to returning to course. A few moments later Aircraft Y checked on with the same deviation. I disapproved any further west and told the aircraft that they needed to turn right; or make a hard left turn to avoid the airspace and go back to the south to navigate east of VYLLA. The aircraft chose to make a left turn but failed to execute it in time to clear the SELLS ATCAA. Ultimately the aircraft made a left 360 and found a hole north of VYLLA to navigate through.I believe there was insufficient time to call the weather and formulate a plan with the flight crew. Since this is an international issue I'm not sure exactly what we can do to prevent it from happening again. Going forward I will simply disapprove west deviation.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller reports of discussion with MMZT Controller about deviations for weather and what he could approve in his airspace. The aircraft came in on non approved routings and violated ATCAA airspace.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IND.TRACON, IN
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: ABB sector from ZID called regarding a handoff I had just accepted via automated means. The Cessna 310 was entering my airspace from the south; and the track would take the aircraft through HUF Approach's airspace for approximately 8 NM before reaching my airspace. Normally; this type of coordination means ABB sector would have received a point out from HUF prior to transferring control to me. When the 310 was nearly at the ABB/HUF boundary (within 30 sec and 2 NM); ABB called me asking if HUF had coordinated the point out by any chance -- ABB could not reach HUF via any means of communication. I said I would try to call HUF. While I was trying the shout line; ABB switched the 310 to my frequency. The 310 continued through HUF airspace for a few miles then transited my airspace without incident. Meanwhile; my TRACON CIC attempted to establish contact with HUF; but was unsuccessful. After approximately 20 minutes ZID assumed responsibility for HUF's airspace because of a communication issue. Recommendation; the root cause of this incident can better be established from a Tech Ops perspective. However; the high reliability of automation and equipment has established an expectation that all coordination will be accomplished nearly instantaneously. This is a reminder that we should not take procedural due diligence for granted. When I am handing an aircraft off to another controller in the future; I will be careful to establish all coordination in a timely manner; so as to accomplish the coordination prior to an airspace boundary.




Synopsis: IND Controller described an airspace incursion when equipment malfunctions and non-adherence to procedures resulted in the event.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNM.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After conducting several prior instrument approaches and on the 2nd approach into the RNM RNAV 9; upon reaching the missed approach point; we activated the missed approach segment. However; the G1000 avionics did not sequence into the missed segment. By the time we were able to troubleshoot the problem; we had flown into lower terrain and were below the MVA. At that point ATC directed us to fly direct to ROBNN; the missed approach waypoint; however; we had already loaded the next approach and the time taken to load ROBNN manually caused us to fly further into lower terrain. ATC then issued a vector to the next approach however we were still somewhat below the MVA for a short period of time before reaching 6;000 feet.This situation was caused by an over reliance on a coupled missed approach and when the airplane did not sequence to the missed approach segment as expected; we should have taken immediate action and just navigated manually without the autopilot. Lesson learned to not wait to troubleshoot but take manual control.




Synopsis: Small aircraft instructor pilot reported the G1000 system malfunctioned during missed approach training resulting in a CFTT event.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Other General Ramp
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Airport Personnel
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: This break-room at this location needs to be swept; mopped; tables wiped down; and disinfected. The location is extremely dirty. The cleaning crews only take out the trash and nothing else. Because of COVID-19; cleaning needs to be done on a regular schedule.  Nothing is being done to make improvements and keep this break-room clean.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported the break-room is not properly being cleaned.
Date: 201705
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I have noticed that wing walking is suffering from the term normalization of deviances. Every day I witness [ramp employees] improperly wing walking to varying degrees. Some are standing with the pushback tug and when it's time to push they are running toward the rear of the plane after movement has begun; or standing together on one side of the aircraft talking and not paying attention to the aircraft movement; therefore not controlling the vehicle traffic; standing by the wing and walking with the plane never controlling oncoming traffic behind the aircraft; using a personal device while wing walking; not keeping an eye on wing tips or tail when approaching an adjacent taxiing aircraft to the end of movement; wing walking out of sight of anyone driving; therefore causing the driver to make split second decisions as to stop; speed up or turn around behind a dispatching aircraft; wing walkers just not paying attention to their surroundings or what is happening behind their fellow wing walker; not staying in sight of the pushback driver so that when a stop signal is given to stop the aircraft the driver can bring the plane to a halt or pushback drivers not obeying the signal of the wing walker. I have even seen Maintenance push aircraft back without wing walkers from satellite parking areas and the list could go on. These are deviances seen on a daily basis; which now takes on normality; business as usual on the busy [ramp]; normalization of deviances. I'm not sure if the ramp supervisors even notice any more and I don't see but one safety advocate and she can't be in all places at once. FYI; I am only referring to outbound wing walking.




Synopsis: Air carrier ramp employee reported noticing multiple deviations from safe SOP operations on the ramp.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger [would] not wear the mask over his nose. He was asked multiple times and then said he can't breathe with it on. I explained our policy; told him the consequences and he said - 'Call the Captain; I don't care I can't breathe.' I came back; asked him one more time and he said it's not my fault and I said I realize that; but when you agreed to fly you agreed to our mask policy.Fine whatever; was his response. The passenger in seat XX first called it to my attention during takeoff then again when I walked by a second time. He was not combative in any way; but refused to comply.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger did not comply with face mask policy during flight.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: More research should be done to understand why these fume events are occurring and what can be done to prevent it.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer [FO] reported a fume event during arrival descent. Additionally; FO requested more research  of events to determine cause and develop prevention.