elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MSY
ATC / advisory: Tower MSY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: When landing at MSY; runway lights were extremely bright! So bright that they are unsafe! We asked Tower to turn them down. They said they could not. MSY Tower has said that multiple pilots have complained and that they have forwarded our complaints; but that nothing has been done. They also said it has been this way for two weeks. MSY Tower stated there is an issue with a transformer or voltage regulator and if they adjust the airport lights in the Tower; they may lose them all. The lights were almost blinding upon landing and very disorienting. Once clear the runway; we had to come to a complete stop because we could barely see the aircraft that Tower was telling us to go around on the taxiway. The taxiway lights were this bright! MSY is unsafe at night due to the high intensity lights!




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported the runway and taxi lights at MSY are too bright. ATC advised they had had many complaints but were not allowed to attempt to lower their intensity lest they lose them altogether.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Traffic Management Unit (TMU) posted on the Electronic Standby Instrument System (ESIS) boards that metering would be beginning. Minutes passed the starting time; there were still no times displayed on the scope. The D-Side called TMU and asked about times; they said they forgot to turn the system on. The first aircraft was within 20 miles of the boundary of a sector that (according to the TMU LOA) can not be held responsible for delays due to complex military airspace; and several behind were given extensive times to meet; putting undo stress on the pilots and controllers for immediate vectors and put safety at risk. TMU needs to be held accountable just as much as any other controller and has been afforded a position of immunity for too long.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller indicated that the TMU needs to held more accountable with regard data dissemination within the control room.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ONT.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the ILS 26R approach to ONT I was the Pilot Flying. At about 10DME on the ONT 26R localizer we experienced a very bright and intense laser tracking the aircraft from our right side; approximately 2nm north and 2nm west of our position. It tracked us for about 40 seconds and intensely illuminated the cockpit directly about three times. I ducked below the instrument panel and continued the approach looking at the flight instruments and shielding my eyes below the panel. The Pilot Monitoring was having a lengthy discussion with ONT Tower about the exact location of the laser source; so I lowered the landing gear and selected flaps 20 to maintain a stabilized approach. When the Pilot Monitoring finished the discussion with Tower; we were about 1;500 feet AGL; I called for flaps 25 and Landing Checklist. We were configured and stabilized by 1;000 feet. We did not experience any physical vision problems because we both quickly shielded our eyes when the laser event began. We did experience some distraction and disruption to normal procedures due to the critical phase of flight when the event occurred.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported being targeted by a laser on approach to ONT Runway 26R.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: cabin. It was so strong that we felt the need to let the flight deck know. We smelled strong oil on the aircraft while doing safety demo. After notifying the Captain we returned to the gate.We need better maintenance on our aircraft; so we don't have fume events.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported strong oil odor during taxi for departure; which resulted in a return to the gate.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HFY.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E IND
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was descending into HFY after being told by IND Approach to squawk 1200 and frequency change approved and my hand held Garmin Aera GPS terrain function went off. I realized I was approaching a tower and I was 600 feet AGL above it and 1500-3000 feet horizontal from the tower. I may have been far enough from the tower but I am not positive. I immediately climbed 400 feet more to 2;000 ft MSL and turned to the right to avoid the tower. I mainly use my Garmin Aera handheld for XM weather and I am not real familiar with the terrain sensitivity settings. I have had the Garmin handheld terrain warning go off on me on a LDA approach into EGE before and I was on glide slope and course. My plane's Ground Proximity did not go off. I normally don't fly VFR but it was a short ferry flight and I was approaching the airport from a direction I normally don't come from which I think was a major contribution to how close I got to the tower. I think avoiding a scattered layer cloud also contributed. Slowing down in the plane and on the ground prior to taking off and familiarizing myself better with the route could have prevented the situation.




Synopsis: Light twin pilot reported climbing to avoid a tower during descent to HFY when the onboard handheld GPS device alerted.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: There is a discrepancy in the Jeppesen's 10-9 related to DEN. While the mag variation has shifted; the airfield diagram does not reflect the new magnetic runway headings for the [runway]. The diagram indicates the mag heading as 173/353 for all north/south runways. However; if the info page is selected; the runway headings are 172/352. While the difference is not significant; it is a discrepancy that needs to be corrected to avoid potential flight safety issues. A similar issue exists for the east/west runways. RWY 8/26 is 082/262; but the 10-9 says 083/263; while 7/25 is 082/262; but the 10-9 shows 082/263. Lack of attention to detail. Develop a system at Jeppesen to identify mag variation shifts beyond simply those that require runways to be renumbered.




Synopsis: ERJ First Officer reported  the DEN Jeppesen 10-9 airfield diagrams do not correlate with the magnetic variation change.
Date: 201901
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: It was brought to my attention today of an issue with de-icing on the gates and near ramp equipment. Team Leader of Gate XX explained to me that the de-icing fluid is making the belt loaders slippery to work on and making this a safety hazard. I went out to the gate myself to see for myself and did in fact had a difficult time getting any type of grip on the belt loader whether it was the belt itself or the black grip strip that is on the side next to the railing.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported the belt loading systems become slippery from de-icing operations creating a safety hazard for ramp personnel.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I have worked 4 weeks in a row of 6 day work weeks. I have been taking some peoples overtime so I am not assigned another overtime shift on my Regular Day Off (RDO) due to my [spouse's] work schedule. When I came into work we only had a three people assigned to this shift when four is the minimum due to having three positions staffed at all times. For this shift no break period was available. On top of that I was working an overtime for the fourth week in a row on a mid-shift. I was completely fatigued for the shift due to it not being staffed properly. This is becoming a very dangerous situation with not just myself becoming fatigued but the whole facility being fatigued and overworked with overtime and below minimum numbers of staffing on each shift. I cannot emphasize enough how critical the staffing situation is becoming. Almost every single employee is working 6 day work weeks with Midshifts scheduled in the middle of their RDOs and working those shift; are below minimums with staffing just like my shift was for this evening. I do not see a Sup being called in for overtime when we are below minimums like this evening. I cannot emphasize more that we need more people hired at this facility. If staffing numbers do not change in the near future and continue the downward trend that we are seeing; a catastrophic event will occur due to controllers being fatigued from multiple six day work weeks and most shifts being understaffed.




Synopsis: An air traffic controller reported becoming fatigue from a lack of staffing and working several six day work weeks.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The First Officer was hand-flying the JCKTS departure off runway 26L. After completing the After Takeoff checklist the Captain noticed we were slightly right of course (less than a half dot). At that time ATC contacted [us] asking if we were going to SNUFY. We verified that we were going to SNUFY. The Tower controller handed us off to Departure and the flight continued without further incident.Threat: Flying an RNAV departure without using the autopilot. Took-off close behind a 737 whose wake turbulence we encountered moving the airplane. Left the gate a few minutes late.Error: Not being vigilant with following the departure course.Undesired aircraft State: Being slightly off course.Ensure autopilot is used as soon as possible. And being more vigilant about maintaining situational awareness while completing flows/checklists.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported deviating from departure course; citing wake turbulence encounter and a hand-flown departure as contributing factors.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After takeoff during initial climb out we received a ACARS message. The message informed us of dangerous goods being carried and to expect a NOTOC (Notification to Captain) prior to gate departure.Reporter suggests it would be preferable to have a system in place that would ensure a NOTOC was presented to the flight crew prior to closing the boarding door.




Synopsis: A-321 Captain reported uneventful flight completion after receiving airborne ACARS notification of undocumented Hazmat cargo cargo on board.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were flying the VOR 4 approach to LGA. We followed all the step downs on the approach down to 600 feet. Shortly before we broke out; Tower told us that we were right of course and they had a low altitude alert on us. Tower gave us the altimeter setting and I confirmed that we had set the correct altimeter setting.  While I was confirming the altimeter setting with Tower; I saw the runway which was slightly to the left. I told Tower that we had the runway and we landed.I'm not sure why Tower got a low altitude alert and as for being slightly to the right of course; it was a non- precision approach.




Synopsis: LGA Tower issued a low altitude alert to an air carrier on the VOR 4 approach because the flight was right of course. The crew; level at 600 feet; was puzzled by the alert and shortly there after had the runway in sight slightly left.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: UAO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Prior to the flight; I checked all relevant NOTAMS through the use of 1800wxbrief.com and through an electronic flight bag program. I noted there was a NOTAM for the RNAV 17 into UAO stating 'RNAV (GPS) RWY 17; ORIG-D... MISSED APPROACH: CLIMB TO 4000 DIRECT DUBMY AND HOLD; CONTINUE CLIMB IN HOLD TO 4000.' This NOTAM was only available in my electronic flight bag software; not on 1800wxbrief.com.With a safety pilot in the copilot seat; I filed an IFR flight plan to execute practice approaches. After flying the approach; I executed the missed approach and advised Approach I was 'climbing 4000; missed approach.' After reaching 4000; ATC advised me that the missed approach procedure was 'climb to 3500 to DUBMY.' I further queried ATC about the FDC NOTAM which changed the missed approach procedure to 'climb 4000 to DUBMY.' After researching the NOTAM; ATC notified me that 4000 was in fact the correct altitude.In this case; the NOTAM in question was a D-NOTAM. There is significant confusion surrounding D-NOTAMS with both pilots and ATC. I suspect that ATC might not review all D-NOTAMs and D-NOTAMS are not displayed on 1800wxbrief.com weather briefings. A difference in expectations could have created a potential conflict in this scenario. For improved safety; D-NOTAMS should be included in all pilot briefings.




Synopsis: A D-NOTAM changed the published missed approach altitude for the RNAV GPS Runway 17 approach at UAO. The TRACON was not aware of the change. The change was not included on the 1800wxbrief.com website.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were descending from 16000 to 12000 with the autopilot on. I called 1000 to go at 13000 ft. Pilot Flying responded 13000 for 12000. About that time ATC called and asked if we had destination weather and what runway and approach we wanted. I responded and then opened my iPad to confirm the airport and approach. As I was looking at the IPad; ATC called and asked what altitude had we been cleared to. I responded 12000 and saw that we were descending through 10500. Pilot Flying (PF) then stopped the descent and started to correct back to 12000. ATC then instructed us to continue the descent to 9000. I asked PF how and why he had not leveled off at 12000. He told me that the autopilot had inadvertently disconnected without him knowing it; and that he had been looking at his iPad and not monitoring the airplane. I need to monitor the PF and airplane better during critical phases of flight. Just because he responded to the altitude callout does not mean that he or the autopilot is going to do it.


Second narrative: This was clearly a CRM failure. While it was a beautiful day with unlimited visibility; the Pilot Flying (PF) should never have looked down at his iPad to assist the PM with any other issue. The primary responsibility of the PF is to fly the aircraft safely with precision. In this case; both pilots had their heads down and neither pilot noticed the assigned altitude had not been captured. This is a basic failure of a structured CRM environment which we must adhere to in the interest of safety and professionalism. In this case both pilots were experienced captains with thousands of flight hours; however; professional CRM practice fell short on this occasion.


Synopsis: CE-560 flight crew reported overshooting assigned altitude on descent due to inadvertent autopilot disconnect and distraction with iPads.