elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA; Special Use OCEANIC
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Trainee; Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was providing OJT Instruction to a trainee. He was coordinating 4 or 5 estimates to the adjacent ARTCC. The adjacent ARTCC read back the first 4 estimates correctly. When we were coordinating Aircraft X; we coordinated the time and altitude on the strip. The adjacent Center controller hesitated for a few seconds on this particular estimate; and read back a different time. I missed the readback. I do not know why I missed it.In other ATC software flight plan processing; if you try to enter an estimate into the system that was 5 hours in the past; you will get a reject message. Apparently ATOP (Oceanic ATC flight plan processing) does not do this. There should be a logic check about what kind of times they can enter into the system to prevent them from entering wildly inaccurate times. That would help. On my part; I should not place too much faith in a trainee; ever. Complacency happens to Instructors.


Second narrative: I was in training. I coordinated an estimate on an aircraft with the adjacent ARTCC. I coordinated an altitude; time and speed to the Controller. He read back an incorrect time and I did not catch it. I will try harder to listen to all read backs.


Synopsis: A ZMA Controller trainee passed flight estimates to another facility. The receiving facility read back one of the estimates incorrectly and it was not caught by the trainee or the instructor.
Date: 201604
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft was operated in an unairworthy condition. The aircraft in question had been out of annual for 4 days at the time of this error. The guidance given to me from another mechanic concerning 'Ferry Permits' was inaccurate or misunderstood by me. I was informed that a Ferry Permit was to accommodate a single flight to reposition an aircraft to a location where maintenance could be performed; provided it was inspected by an authorized mechanic (me) and a log entry made certifying that the aircraft was in a condition for safe operation. I was not aware; until after I returned that I violated two of the conditions required for a ferry permit.1. It must be approved by the FSDO associated with the flight's origin (not the inspecting Mechanic)2. Only required Crewmembers are allowed on the flight.I was under the impression that the only requirement for a ferry permit was to make an entry in the logbook that the aircraft was safe for operation with the restriction that the flight only be to reposition the aircraft to a base where the maintenance could be performed. I have since read; and I now understand the details that are involved in requesting a ferry permit.




Synopsis: A Mechanic reported a Cessna 172 was flown in an unairworthy condition due to the annual inspection being 4 days overdue. The ferry permit was inaccurate therefore illegal.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B HOU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed 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 Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was the lead aircraft cleared for the ILS to RWY04 at HOU. I vectored Aircraft Y; to intercept the localizer behind Aircraft X. There was a 30-40kt tailwind on final and the speed reduction I gave Aircraft Y was not enough. I eventually gave the pilot final approach speed which he was still decreasing distance between the aircraft. I eventually lost 4 miles; we just began the RECAT program at our facility which required me to maintain 4 miles both operating behind and on approach. I was under the impression that I only needed the 4 miles when the lead aircraft was over the landing threshold like before. Aircraft Y eventually reported Aircraft X in sight and I cleared him for the visual approach to follow.I have familiarized myself with the new wake turbulence minima and will continue to do so.




Synopsis: I90 Controller describes a loss of separation while trying to implement the RECAT wake turbulence minimums for the airport.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SJC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Pushback
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: During pushback the push crew said the tow bar had disconnected and to stop the aircraft; I applied light brake pressure and came to a stop.  He said the tow bar was defective and they confirmed that there was no damage to the nose gear.  We proceeded and the flight was uneventful.  After rereading the breakaway procedure in the Normal Pushback section it was noted that we should have had maintenance inspect the nose gear.  I called Maintenance Control and they had the inspection done.  No damage was observed.


Second narrative: When looking at the Breakaway procedures section; there is no warning of contacting maintenance in the actual breakaway procedure section. It was only after the flight that the Captain found the warning on a previous page at the beginning of the normal section. Due to using a tablet vice a physical manual; it was not readily apparent that maintenance should be contacted during any issues with the tow bar. I would recommend an additional warning be added to the breakaway section.


Synopsis: When the towbar broke during pushback; the ground crew alerted the Captain of the A320 who brought the aircraft to a gentle stop. The ground crew advised there was no visible damage and the flight crew continued the flight. They later discovered a normal procedure AOM reference required a specific inspection after a breakaway from a tow. Maintenance was advised and the procedure completed at the next stop. Both pilots advised the location of the requirement; on tablet pages preceding the breakaway procedure; made it questionable that it would be seen by flight crews accessing only the procedure itself.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft was issued detailed taxi instructions to Runway 26L; pilot checked on with current ATIS. Weather (snow; low visibility) at time of incident was such that aircraft was barely visible from tower. Pilot called and asked if he could make a right 270 degree turn; apparently to rejoin his assigned taxi route. I approved his unusual request; as it appeared that he may have missed his turn I immediately offered alternative taxi instructions to eliminate the need for a 270 degree turn at the intersection. Pilot reported that braking action on the taxiway was poor. He then reported something to the effect that he was unable to comply with my alternate instructions. He then reported that he was in the grass. There had been no previous braking action reports regarding taxiways. I immediately informed the Supervisor of the situation. Normally the airport authority is meticulous about reporting field conditions; it seems like they may have been behind the power curve today. A braking action report regarding taxiways would have been beneficial to alert users to the conditions experienced. The airport had just plowed the runway and airport crews were just in the vicinity of the incident minutes earlier.




Synopsis: Ground Controller described a taxiway excursion by an Air Carrier taxiing for departure; the reporting noting no taxiway braking action reports were available at the time of the incident.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Center advised me of possible rain 4 miles ahead. I entered heavy rain immediately. Autopilot did not disengage and made a hard right turn. The autopilot cut off switch failed and I had to overpower the autopilot pulling the autopilot circuit breaker. Pilot regained control at 4000 FT at a 180 degree north heading. Center handed me off to Approach and I stayed at 4000 FT for the rest of the flight. I landed without incident.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the autopilot did not disengage using either the yoke or forward panel disconnect buttons. The aircraft was equipped with a G1000 navigation system coupled to a G700 autopilot. Upon return to his home airport the aircraft was inspected. The only malfunction a Mechanic could locate was a loose autopilot servo connection which had some moisture in it. The aircraft has been flown since this event and performed normally.



Synopsis: A C182RG entered heavy rain and made a hard right descending turn while the pilot unsuccessfully attempted to disconnect the G700 autopilot.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was handed off to Feeder I from ZDV Sector 26 inbound to APA. Feeder I handed Aircraft X off to me and I took the hand off when Aircraft X was descending out of FL200 about 15 miles south south west of LARKS. I noticed a VFR target that was westbound at 175 and assumed that Aircraft X was descending to FL180. The confliction was going to occur inside ZDV Sector 26 airspace. When I observed Aircraft X continue to descend out of FL180 I ran over to the Feeder I position and asked if they were talking to Aircraft X. The controller responded yes; and I told the controller to issue a traffic alert to Aircraft X on the VFR at 175. Aircraft X told the Feeder I controller that if action wasn't taken; then they would have hit the VFR aircraft and they had to take evasive action to avoid the mid-air.ZDV Sector 26 should not have allowed Aircraft X to descend into the VFR traffic. They did not absolve all conflictions prior to switching communications.


Second narrative: Aircraft X was on arrival to APA; ZDV transferred communication to me well within their airspace. A VFR aircraft was wired perfectly with Aircraft X and ZDV did nothing about it just shipped him to me. Approximately 12 miles from my airspace boundary; I made a traffic alert call; and turned Aircraft X 20 degrees left. After they passed; I asked Aircraft X if the MODE C readout on the aircraft he had just passed was good. He stated that it was. He stated that they would have hit if I had not turned him. A coordinator for me called the ZDV sector to find out why he did not resolve all conflicts before transferring communications to D01; the Controller responded with 'I shipped him way back there.' So even though this happened way inside ZDV airspace; and he set me up with this conflict; he thinks he has no responsibility? His performance is beyond excusable. Make the ZDV do labs and classroom to learn basic air traffic rules like 'Resolve all conflicts before transferring communications.' Note the next report I will be submitting in just a minute; as this same controller plows through two sectors at D01 with an IFR aircraft and no point out to either of us.


Synopsis: Denver TRACON Controllers reported an NMAC with an IFR and VFR aircraft due to Center's lack of separation.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft released via Redmond SID and heading 170. Pilot checked on after departure correctly and I issued 'radar contact; leaving 7;000 [direct] SUNBE (couple hundred miles south) and restated climb to 140;00.' Read back was marginal with '[direct] SUNBE; maintain 14;000'. No alt to make turn so my assumption is he's going direct now. I restated 'SUNBE at 7;000 please' and he said to effect 'garbled... sorry SUNBE cross 7;000 and then 14;000 after that.' Typically; the aircraft is not even close to our Minimum Vectoring Altitude to go on course if Tower ships them in a timely manner at that point. Typically the jet will be on course in around 12 to 15 miles from departure. While this was going on I had several VFR practice approaches and VFR aircraft so my attention was drawn to potential conflict. I called in the blind for VFR aircraft as well as Tower. Somehow I missed that this jet actually read back fix 'cross' at 7;000 which would never in my years have made sense. I'm surprised that the pilot did not query me. 7;000 feet for 200+ miles or something like that then climb? Despite being distracted with the conflict potential and the fact that I heard fix; alt and top alt I trusted what I heard was issued. After the pilot asked when I came back online from the Tower I realized what may have happened and at that point reissued top altitude and for him to continue climb to my next higher terrain. On my part; hearing the crossing word had implications for sure. On the pilot side; the responsibility of accepting a clearance should have some weight.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an aircraft flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude due to an incorrect readback of the controller's clearance.
Date: 202004
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I told the Y Flight Attendant (FA) that I would not be riding on the jumpseat for takeoff or landing due to social distancing. Also; I have witnessed other FAs that have done the same thing. [The Y FA] said OK. Once we were getting ready to board our second flight; instead [of the Y FA] talking to me about [the] concerns; [the Y FA] told the pilot and called a Supervisor. Then told me that the Z FA would switch with me so I can ride in the back by myself or get pulled since I didn't want to do my job. The only reason I chose not ride the jumpseat with the Y FA is because of the pandemic going on; and sitting [next] to the FA on the jumpseat would not give us enough space for social distancing. Also; I saw it happen on other flights so I thought because of all that's going on; it was OK. It was brought to my attention that I indeed have to sit on the jumpseat until FAA changes that rule.I will follow policies and sit on the jumpseat whether in the front or back. I will follow all FAA guidelines.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant did not want to sit in the appropriate jumpseat for takeoff/landing for social distancing concerns. A Supervisor was contacted and the Flight Attendant was given the option to move to a different jumpseat or to be pulled from the flight. The Flight Attendant moved to another jumpseat.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DVT.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D DVT
ATC / advisory: Tower DVT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared to takeoff from Runway 25L and was initially asked to fly straight out. Upon reaching 400 ft tower said right turn northwest bound approved and said monitor north tower. South tower didn't tell me there was departing traffic from the parallel runway westbound. I saw the Cessna as we were turning and adjusted our climb rate and direction to avoid traffic. The traffic crossed underneath us. Seemed very close to us; approximately 100-200 ft. TIS (Traffic Information System) traffic was unavailable in the aircraft at the time.




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported ATC issued a turn towards traffic departing from the parallel runway at DVT resulting in a near midair collision.
Date: 201908
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise at FL340 approximately 35 minutes out of ZZZ one of the flight attendants called and said there was a smell of gas around exits 2L/R. I went back to investigate. The smell was intermittent; however; it was pungent and verified by all 4 flight attendants and numerous pax in the vicinity. After concurrence with Dispatch; it was decided to divert to ZZZ1 which was below us. [Advised ATC] and we diverted. The landing to [Runway] XXL was uneventful; we were under max landing weight. After landing I checked with the flight attendants. Everything was OK; so we taxied to the pad.


Second narrative: In cruise the Flight Attendant called to report a fuel odor in the cabin. The Captain investigated and confirmed a strong odor of fuel near 2L/2R.  We [advised] with ATC; referenced company procedures; and informed Dispatch.  With their coordination; we landed safely in ZZZ1.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported 'fuel pungent' odor in the passenger cabin resulting in a diversion.