elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Undifferentiated
Operator: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Operating under: Recreational Operations / Section 44809 (UAS)
Flight plan: None
Mission: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Flight phase: Return to Home (UAS)
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Recreational / Hobbyist (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS); Remote PIC (UAS)
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying my DJI aircraft recreationally at XA15 at the ZZZ Harbor during my DJI drone's flight on its Return To Home automation when a public official asked me for my license and registration. I told him that I was a recreational pilot on site and had a self unlocking license from DJI Fly app to fly at ZZZ Area.He told me that I was too close to the airport (2.5 miles away) and that I didn't have permission from the tower or a permit from the harbor. He also told me that I need to have my DJI aircraft registered and displayed at all times and gave a me a ticket for not complying with FAA registration. He notified me later that I needed a 107 license and that my DJI aircraft needed to be registered and displayed correctly on the drone at all times. I am self reporting because I was unaware and believed at the time that I had acquired all measures I need to fly there. I aim to always fly safely and share the skies responsibly.I was unaware that I had missed steps to safely and legally fly over the water in that area.




Synopsis: Hobbyist drone pilot was unaware they were flying in controlled airspace until approached by a public official.
Date: 202002
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Performed an audit on Aircraft X. [Ramp agent] unable to finalize DSTG (departure staging guide) in where he showed he loaded 14 bags in pit 3 along with exempt DG ELM Q [ Lithium Metal Batteries] shipment at 85 lbs. We spoke with the [agent] and he did confirm 15 bags were staged in pit 3 to secure the DG commodity. It was explained to him an audit would be performed upon arrival into PDX station and stated he was good with the audit to be performed. ZZZ Supervisor performed the audit and confirmed only 14 bags were loaded with the dangerous goods commodity. He also stated the DG commodity displayed a 'Do Not Stack' label but 6 plus 1 heavy bag were found on top of the shipment. Safety report filed for 14 CFR 121.665 and 14 CFR 121.693 violation.




Synopsis: Ramp Supervisor reported during arrival audit Dangerous Goods shipment improperly secured in cargo pit and heavy items were stacked on top of 'Do not Stack' label.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After a runway change from DEN RWY 25 to DEN RWY 17R due to Radar issues with Denver Center and need for 10 nm In-trail spacing; our flight departed RWY 17R in VMC conditions on the BAYLR 3 RNAV Departure with Clearance to T.O. RNAV to GOROC. After T.O.; while Hand Flying in the right turn on the departure; we passed YORVT (8000A) at approximately 9500 ft MSL; then slightly overshot 10000 @ HURDL (10000B) at 2 miles prior to HURDL. We immediately corrected to 10000 with No separation loss or ATC query or intervention. Taking Full Responsibility; there was one very interesting point after the fact. The FMC did not recognize the 10000B until after the 8000A. It was only after the 8000A that the FMA changed to VNAV Path and commanded the FD's to a -5 degree pitch; then immediately to a present pitch attitude. It appeared that the FMC only recognizes one WPT restriction at a time and not the entire SID/STAR Profile. Incidentally; this departure is one of the few that I know of that has an AT or ABOVE followed by an AT or BELOW so close together. DEN Tower and DEPT control were having problems with the hand offs due to irregularities; but we should've been more attentive to CRM/TEM/VVM (Crew Resource Management; Threat Error Management; Verbalize; Verify; Monitor) during the departure to avoid possible altitude deviations.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the FMC had difficulty complying with a SID out of DEN.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 25
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sabreliner 265
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On short final at ZZZ airport; we experienced a loss of hydraulic pressure. We proceeded to continue to land. A normal landing with no problems. We taxied off Runway 25 with instructions to taxi to the ramp. All functions were normal; just short of turning on to the ramp; we lost all hydraulics; with no steering or normal brakes. We exited the taxiway on to the grass; at very slow speed and came to a stop. No one was injured.


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


Synopsis: Sabreliner flight crew reported the aircraft lost all hydraulic power during taxi.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During boarding; the Flight Attendant notified me of a passenger that she thought appeared to be intoxicated. We called the customer service to notify her that a passenger appeared to be intoxicated. Customer service stated to me that the passenger did not appear to be intoxicated at that time. Under my observation; she did not appear that she was intoxicated. Enroute; I received a call from the Flight Attendant that the passenger was struggling to buckle her seatbelt and continued to take her mask off after multiple requests had been made. I made the non-compliance announcement for mask requirements; and she did not comply with the request either. We decided to have ZZZ1 customer service meet us at the gate to have the passenger removed. I notified Dispatch and ZZZ1 Operations to ensure we had someone meeting us at the aircraft. Upon arrival; customer service removed the passenger without any further issues. The event was caused by a passenger being intoxicated and a delayed reaction of the alcohol entering the blood stream; causing the effects of the alcohol to not become noticeable until enroute. Next time a passenger is appearing to be intoxicated; although multiple opinions on whether they appear to be intoxicated; have the passenger removed and tested for alcohol.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a passenger appeared intoxicated during boarding; but was allowed to fly.  During the flight the passenger was non-compliant with face mask policy.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair IV/IVP
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: IFR route filed and clearance received was KPRC DRK V105 FMG V165 MAVER KUAO. Approximately 10 miles NW of LAS; Approach Control asked me if I could accept DIRECT FMG DIRECT destination. I responded affirmative and was given said clearance. Shortly after I was handed off to Nellis Control. While reviewing my projected flight path I realized that at my altitude (16;000 MSL) this path would pass through one of the restricted airspaces: either R-4810 or R-4812. I called Nellis Control; identified this situation and asked if this would create a problem. I was told it was a problem and that I should be on my cleared route on V105. I informed Nellis that Las Vegas Approach had cleared me direct FMG; but [I] accepted Nellis' direction; informed them that I would intercept V105 and continue on the original clearance. I don't know if the modified clearance given by Las Vegas Approach was improper; or if the modified clearance was not provided to Nellis [Control]. I do know that following the modified clearance at that altitude I would have entered the restricted airspace.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot received modified clearance; questioned next facility about a restricted area on the modified route and received new clearance.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were told to cross ZZZZ1 at FL230 and 280 KTS. We had it programmed CORRECTLY into the FMS. We both checked it several times. The airplane started down and we were ON THE PATH. The magenta donut was in the middle. The PROG page showed us 0 vertical deviation. The restriction was the correct color on the flight plan page. About 20 miles from ZZZZ1 we determined that we were not going to make ZZZZ1 at FL230. We were too high. We both looked at the FMS and it was simply not working right. There's some kind of bug in the ZZZZ2 arrival programming. We disconnected the autopilot and pushed the nose over and descended at about 5;500 to 6;000 FT per minute and ended up crossing ZZZZ1 about 1;000 FT high. There was no traffic on the TCAS and center didn't say anything so we didn't feel like there was a traffic conflict. There's a software bug or two in the ZZZZ2 arrival. We would have missed the first couple of crossing restrictions at the rate it was descending.The flight standards group is going to have to come to grips with the fact that the ZZZZZ arrival is full of bugs. This was not a case of a low cruise altitude causing the first restriction being deleted. It was there FL230 and 280 at ZZZZZ. The flight plan page on the FMS showed the restriction at ZZZZ1 in the proper color (not amber). The donut was in the middle. This was not an entry error. This was simply a bug in the operating system. Denying the problem exists won't make it go away. Why do we have so many altitude errors on this arrival?




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported the failure of the autoflight system to comply with the altitude and speed restrictions on arrival. He believes repeated instances of non-compliance are indicative of a programming error.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 MAX Series Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoland
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: First legs on MAX aircraft in over two years; and when I went to accomplish a Heads-up Guidance System (HGS) takeoff and landing; I became confused on where the CAT III placard was located/displayed on MAX aircraft.  Nothing in logbook about downgrade; and HGS presentation was correct; but I could not locate the placard.  We continued with flight; and researched the placard location enroute with MAX manual resources in flight to understand correct CAT III placard display.  At conclusion of flight; I intended to contact a Check Airman and/or the flight training department to understand; but then my FO sent me a picture of a MAX he was operating the next day with the CAT III placard displayed on Captain Auxiliary Display HGS Annunciator Panel.I next contacted the Chief Pilot to inform him and Maintenance (MX) that this aircraft's displays were not set up properly.  The Chief Pilot said he would contact Maintenance Control to query.  He called back a few minutes later to explain that Maintenance had inadvertently de-selected the CAT III placard 'Off' on this aircraft; and would send someone to correct ASAP as the aircraft was on the ground in ZZZ.Chief Pilot suggested a safety report to highlight location of MAX aircraft placard location as it is digital versus 'the bone;' as well as highlight there appears to be no information in MAX manuals concerning the placard display.  The only reference found was for the MAX AUX Display HGS Annunciator Pane; which only displays an example of FO's display; nothing about the Captain-side display.




Synopsis: B737 MAX Captain reported that the CAT III Placard was not visible to the flight crew due to the cockpit displays not configured properly by Maintenance.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given to descend via the ZZZ arrival. We descended and made all the speed and crossing restrictions down to 10;000 feet. ATC told us to maintain 310 knots and then given to reduce to 250 knots at our discretion. After reducing to 250 knots; the aircraft started to continue to descend via the arrival as it should have. However; around 9500 feet I stopped the aircraft from descending because I had thought 10;000 feet was our last assigned altitude but had forgotten we were cleared to descend via the arrival. The long time at 10;000 feet apparently caused me to assume that was the last assigned altitude though we were given descend via early in the arrival. We verified with ATC that we were cleared to descend via the arrival and they stated affirmative. The brief stop in the descent caused us to be 300 feet high and above the 210 knot restriction over the ZZZ intersection. However; prior to crossing the ZZZ intersection; ATC told us to descend and maintain 5000 feet. We also were given the option to land on runway XX versus our original assigned runway XYL. We chose to land runway XX without further incident.




Synopsis: A pilot descending via the arrival into ZZZ stopped his descent at 9;500 feet because he forgot the descent clearance. After verifying approach clearance with ATC; the descent was fast and high crossing ZZZ intersection.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The NIITZ 1 RNAV Departure from Runway 8L depicts FLAAR as prior to the lake.  The E/O (Engine Out) Page for 8L shows it as past the lake. I realize that DP1 is an altitude (3;500 feet - 6;000 feet) but the diagram does not match up. I expressed my concerns to a Check Airman friend and he did a better job of analyzing the problem. He noted the brown arc on the E/O (MSA circle we assume) shows FLAAR to be at 25 NM. I used the FIX Page of the FMC and put the LAS/12.7 arc and it lands on top of FLAAR. So; I see two problems. The 'terrain' and the omission of 'Not to Scale' could create confusion when you are trying to build a visual model of the E/O. Also; I'm not sure we recognize the hold at FLAAR is really only 12.7 NM from LAS; not 25 where it may seem less threatening to following traffic.My friends words: I agree that if you were trying to create a mental image of what you were doing in case you lost an engine; then the engine out diagram (picture) would lead you astray. The dilemma arises from the 12.7 ring and FLAAR being almost coincident. It gets worse; because 12.7 and FLAAR have nothing to do with one another. 12.7 only matters if you are below 3;500 feet. And FLAAR only matters if you are above 3;500 feet. So we are mixing altitudes with rings with fixes with terrain features with no warning that the drawing is not to scale! The disturbing part to me is that the E/O has the standard 25 NM MSA ring (at least that's what I think it is; and it is at 25 NM); which lends credence to FLAAR being 25 NM out (not about 13). So you are totally right! The written text is fine; but the diagram is very misleading.  I think we need to put 'NOT TO SCALE'. Or get rid of the terrain features. But the mixing and matching just leads to confusion (at the worst time).




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the LAS NITZ1 RNAV Engine Out for Runway 8L page diagram depiction of FLAAR and the 12.7 ring is confusing.