elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Busy traffic; bad rides; frequency congestion; then GPS jamming.  I asked the Supervisor to lower the sector traffic numbers to reflect volume and complexity. Supervisor called Traffic Management Unit and they didn't lower the sector traffic numbers. Aircraft are greatly affected by the GPS jamming and its not taken seriously by management; we've been told we can't ask to stop jamming and to just put everyone on headings. Limit the length and what time of the day that facilities can GPS jam and have it taken seriously when we call and ask them to stop.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported GPS jamming in their airspace during busy periods created an unsafe sector operation.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW; Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; 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 Issued Advisory / Alert; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure; Company Policy; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: This event started around XA:30 to XB:00. It lasted till around XC:45. Weather that was known by everyone was forecast to form in the middle of ZKC. Late in the evening it did in fact form as was forecast. Numerous overflight aircraft were routed from ZKC into ZFW to miss the weather. In fact more aircraft than I have ever seen at one time in one sector (and I've seen some real turd shows) in my years were in the sector. I can't even explain it. You would never believe me. There was no Traffic Management Unit (TMU) plan. None. We took more hand offs than we ever should have. I don't think they even make cuss words that would be strong enough to match the situation. I am baffled.TMU took no action. The same thing happened [last week at] night; but wasn't quite as bad or last quite as long. No TMU plan. I can't imagine how we'll get through this weather season if this continues. Perhaps TMU needs a 'plan book' to help them figure out what to do when these things occur. Some kind of flow chart. For instance 'if weather forecast to form in ZKC; enact play book routes in a timely manner so as to not be useless.' Something like that.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported insufficient action was taken by the Traffic Management Units to prevent sectors from being overloaded when forecast weather manifested.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Ozone
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We received a message from Dispatch informing us of an ozone area containing 0.25 PPM from FL360 to FL500 along our route of flight. Neither the Captain nor I realized the relevance of the ozone concentration and did not descend from FL360. We didn't find any useful information in the FOM regarding our course of action. An hour and a half later we received another message from Dispatch informing us that a report was being generated on our flight because we had remained at FL360 and to call Dispatch if we needed any further details.




Synopsis: A B757 received an Ozone Alert from Dispatch on a North Atlantic Track but had no guidance about what action should be taken.
Date: 201712
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The 1;000 ft and 500 ft callouts from barometric to Radar Altimeter (RA) present some challenges for Situational Awareness and Stable Approach criteria at some airports in the theater of operations of Central and South America. Arriving under visual meteorological conditions to MROC (San Jose; CR) the barometric marker at 1;000 ft equaled nearly 1;600 RA; and the corresponding 500 ft to almost 800 ft RA. We experienced a similar situation in MGGT (Guatemala City). First; when we go every 9 months to the simulator; we get to practice a non-electronic assisted visual approach for the exception of the fix page information to correlate altitude with distance. This allows for a Stable Approach to maintain an approximate 3 degree path. Secondly; the Stable Approach criteria is based on an aircraft configuration and energy state consistent with the first set of gates (1;000 ft then 500 ft) to preclude an undesired aircraft state. If we were to use the last 500 ft RA as a final gate; we would be much lower and closer to the ground than what the criteria requires and not be in violation of SOPs. Is this safe and logical? Then; what is the purpose to utilize an RA if is to provide inaccurate information? In SEQM (Quito) we would make more than one 1;000 ft callout when in fact we are 2;000 ft above the field. Again; for a Stabilized Approach; if I find myself at 1;000 ft and 6 miles out; I am going to level off; which is the wrong thing to do in this case. I can use similar arguments for many other airport.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported that Company SOPs of using Radar Altimeters for altitude callouts can provide inaccurate information when operating in Central American and South American airports.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out ZZZ we felt what I described as going over a small pot hole. Soon after I got a call from a flight attendant at door 3R. He said that he heard a bang under the floor at his location. I told him that we felt something as well and we would check things out and get back to him. After reaching a safe altitude; the relief pilot went back to the location to talk to the F/As and see if there was anything unusual. I proceeded to call Dispatch and [Maintenance]. I advised them what we heard and felt and we came to the conclusion that we had a possible cargo shift. [Maintenance] called load planning and they said we had 3 pallets in the aft cargo compartment. We had no other indications in the cockpit and the F/O that went back called and said he could not feel anything unusual back there. We all came to the conclusion that it was safe to proceed. Remainder of flight was normal and we landed in ZZZZ without further incident. After deplaning; we went outside to check the cargo and that is when we saw that we had lost an aerodynamic panel below and in front of door 3R.


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


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported hearing a bang from the under-floor area. They continued to their international destination where they found a fuselage panel missing from the fuselage in the vicinity of door 3R.
Date: 201203
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Fatigue; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Other fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had to call in fatigued for my West Coast flight. I was completely exhausted after my multiple early shows from my original pairing on two days before. I just came in from a very early departure this morning and by the time I got home; in a vain attempt to get some sleep during the day before my evening departure for the Coast; I was completely disoriented and exhausted. Being 'double pumped' or having multiple duty periods in one day is completely unsafe; but asking me to do a 5 hour flight to the West Coast and arriving at midnight Pacific Coast time the same day is completely unsafe.




Synopsis: A First Officer got home early in the morning and was scheduled for a five hour cross country trip that night but unable to get sleep during the day; called in fatigued for this second duty period of the day.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While practicing touch and goes with a student; after touchdown the student released back pressure on the yoke dropping the nose; this put the aircraft in an attitude that almost flipped the plane sideways. She proceeded to apply back pressure and right rudder since the airplane was veering left; this sent us heading right towards the edge of the runway 35L; I proceeded to take over the controls; applying full power and trying to rotate the aircraft before it flew off the side of the runway; and in the process; the left wing tip and left elevator tip appeared to struck the gravel (I did not notice this while in flight). I managed to rotate and stabilize the aircraft and proceeded to fly the pattern again and come in for a full stop landing. I failed to run a thorough post flight and did not notice the damage to both the wing tip and the scrapped elevator tip. Also on Sunday I went out with a different student for a flight and again failed to notice the damage on the aircraft; given that the student had done previous preflights properly and I had instructed her that in the case of noticing anything strange; missing or out of place; she should notify me immediately for me to inspect and assess; she failed to notify me of the damage and we proceeded to fly staying in the pattern for 1.1 hours and 9 landings.




Synopsis: A student pilot lost control of the aircraft during landing but the instructor recovered. Both pilots failed to notice wing tip and horizontal stabilizer damage during postflight. His next student also did not see the damage during preflight; but discovered it during that postflight.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing SFO we required either Runway 28L or R for departure. We were cleared by ground to taxi to and hold short of 28L. Tower subsequently cleared us to cross 28L and taxi into position and hold on 28R. As I taxied between the runways I looked out on final and it appeared that a plane was approaching 28R for landing; approximately 1/2 mile out. My copilot was briefly heads-down changing the runway and takeoff data in the FMC. I asked him to look out; and he agreed that it did appear a plane was approaching the runway we were cleared for. I asked him to tell Tower we were holding short; and Tower immediately insisted we were cleared into position and hold. My copilot replied that there was a plane landing right in front of us. The Tower Controller seemed confused; and as the plane passed by; he said OK; we were now cleared into position and hold. The landing airplane was told to go around; from less than 30 FT above the runway. We taxied on to the runway and were subsequently cleared for takeoff. The rest of the departure was normal. I am certain that if I had not visually cleared final and stopped before taking the runway it would have at the least been a very near miss. If I had continued as cleared and the arriving plane had not seen us or been able to react in time; we would have collided.




Synopsis: ATC cleared an aircraft to line up and wait on SFO Runway 28R; but the crew held short because they saw an aircraft on short final which ultimately did land on 28R.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Interior Door
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Passenger fainted in the aisle. It happened to be in the middle of the aft lav doors that are non-retractable. There were passengers in each lav that could not get out. Two crew members in the galley [were] unable to access doctor recommended equipment. A call forward to Purser remedied that portion. Had there been another unforeseen event; this could have been very dangerous. The lav doors have been a problem since inception. I have seen people get hit with them; I've been hit with them; and they block the galley.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported non-retractable lavatory doors could pose a safety hazard in emergency situations; or injure people standing too close when opened.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Gulfstream II (G1159)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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 Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent the airplane experienced a rapid decompression. I was given an altitude restriction of FL270 at FL273. The aircraft oxygen masks deployed. I made the decision to continue descent and have the pilot not flying contact ATC of our need to continue down to lower level. ATC frequency was congested and we descended below FL270 prior to contacting ATC. We made contact with ATC as we descended through FL266. I explained we had a pressurization issue and needed lower immediately. ATC cleared me to FL260; prior to reaching they cleared us to 17;000 ft. approximately at FL190 we started to gain control of our pressure problem and leveled off at 17;000 feet. We continued to destination. No further issues. Center advised me to contact them upon landing. I landed and gave all requested information to center.


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


Synopsis: GII crew experienced a rapid decompression and difficulty obtaining a clearance for lower altitude from ATC.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was working everything in the Tower combined. Aircraft Y checked in on a GPS Runway XX approach and I cleared him for the option. A few minutes later Aircraft X called for taxi and I gave him the normal taxi instructions with a crossing at Runway XX; forgetting that I had cleared an aircraft for that runway. While I was making an amendment to a flight plan I hear Aircraft Y ask why there is an aircraft on his runway. He had come to a complete stop on the runway while Aircraft X was crossing. I told him to hold position and once it was clear I cleared him for takeoff from present position. We're reduced staffing due to COVID-19; and having to train forces us to combine positions to accomplish the numbers that management is pushing for.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported a ground conflict and cited reduced staffing due to COVID-19 and training at combined positions as contributing factors.
Date: 201911
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
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: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the ride along for this military charter when the box truck was backed to the belt loader to load FWD pit of aircraft and door was opened; there was a tremendous smell of fuel. I immediately thought something with the truck or belt loader failed. I then saw several jerry jugs in the back of the truck; approximately 15 were loose on the ground and 25 or so in a palletized cardboard box. I questioned one of the passengers if they expected to load them he replied yes. These were previously used and some if not all had residual gasoline in them. I advised them NOT to load them and requested to speak to the Officer in Charge. The ground crew who accepted the truck and weighed it had no knowledge of these containers leading me to believe they did not inspect the truck contents. In questioning the Sergeant who was put in charge last minute (per conversation) he stated that the other 2 carriers would not accept the jugs and they were hoping we would. I explained the severity and that under no circumstance these would fly and he understood. Fortunately this was caught.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported refusing to load hazmat in cargo which had been previously rejected by two other carriers.