elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working NC1 position in TMU and started out the shift with weather impacting DFW metro-plex arrivals from the northeast.  I coordinated with the controller working sector 42 and he advised that aircraft were deviating and we may need to move the aircraft overflying RRNET down to the FEWWW route.  I called command center and relayed this; and also got her (name forgotten) opinion on the outlook from command center's view. I was told the area of weather west of the DFW area was more of a concern than the area northeast of DFW; but we'll see how it goes. As the morning progressed; coordination went back and forth between myself; D10 TMU; and the command center; as far as the RVR outage impacting one of the arrival runways and what to expect.  D10 speculated the rate could go down to 60 and I relayed this.  Weather moved in; turbulence was reported; and we were told that aircraft were conducting 'go-a-rounds' due to wind shear; and we went into holding at the corner posts. I remember at one point command center asking to talk to the STMC and I stayed on the line while he tried to implement a first tier ground stop with the possibility of a second tier ground stop.  Command center did not agree to a first tier but said she could support ground stopping ZHU traffic inbound to DFW. I checked the FEA's I had at the time and saw there were at least 5 aircraft proposed out of ZAB; and at least 3 or 4 out of ZKC.  I didn't count the ones out of ZME but I noticed there were some.  Command center said she would get back to us as far as a decision to ground stop all first tier. While we were awaiting that decision I took note that it had been quite a while without that decision and that ZAB had already launched 3 aircraft. As it turned out; I was told more than 70 aircraft were diverted.At ZFW I feel we accommodate as much as possible and ask a lot out of our controllers with as little impact on the NAS as possible.  If we ask for help; I would like to see more trust put into our decision.




Synopsis: ZFW TMC reports of a dialog with the ATCSCC and D10 reference arrival and departure rates that he wants to implement reference the weather.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff an 'Engine VIB HI' alert was displayed. We ran the QRH checklist and monitored the left engine. Shortly after that the left engine failed; I called for the memory item and QRH checklist and continued to fly while the Captain read and complied with the checklist. ATC was notified and an emergency declared. The flight attendants were briefed. Once the approach was strung; we transferred controls and the Captain landed.This was a mechanical failure; so I can not make any suggestions on how to avoid a recurrence; but I do believe that our training more than adequately prepared us for the event.




Synopsis: B717 flight crew shortly after takeoff; experienced a left engine high vibration indication and then failure.  The crew declared an emergency; performed an inflight shutdown; and returned safely to their departure airport.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Bonanza 35
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While northbound in level flight at 3;500 feet; we were watching opposite direction traffic pass 1 mile off our left wing. As soon as he passed; we looked forward just in time to see a Beechcraft Bonanza BE35 cross over us on a westbound heading; going over our windshield 40 feet above us. We dived to avoid him. He never made any evasive maneuvers; indicating he probably never saw us.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot flying northbound reports a NMAC at 3;500 feet NNW of MZB with a westbound BE35. Forty feet of vertical separation is reported as evasive action is taken. The other pilot did not maneuver.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
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 Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were prepping Aircraft X for a push from ZZZ to ZZZ1.  The Service Info Summary came over the printer and was discussed.  The FO (First Officer) pointed out that there was a powered wheelchair loaded in the pit containing lithium-ion batteries but no documentation had been received.  We worked our way through a somewhat confusing section in the FOM (Operating Manual) regarding the loading of various batteries and found that lithium ion batteries indeed were not allowed in the cargo pit.  We then contacted ZZZ OPS to verify if proper procedure had been followed with the batteries being removed and placed in the cabin. As it turned out proper procedures were not followed regarding disconnecting and placement of the batteries and proper notification of the Captain.  The gate agent was told by the passenger that the wheelchair had been turned off.   The agent took this as adequate precaution and allowed the wheelchair with the attached batteries to be loaded into the pit.  The pink Captains copy of the Battery Powered Mobility Device Tag (see attached) was retrieved after the wheelchair was brought back to the jetway.  Ramp personnel then attempted; unsuccessfully; to remove the batteries.  The passenger; with much effort; came back to the jetway and instructed the ramp personnel on how to remove the batteries.  The batteries were then placed in the cabin near the passenger; the wheelchair was reloaded into the pit and the rest of the flight was completed without further event.




Synopsis: B-737 Captain reported 'Lithium Ion battery powered wheelchair' procedures were not followed by ground personnel. Error corrected prior to departure.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Falcon 10/100
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The brakes on our aircraft had been worked on and the repair station told us they had been repaired and asked us to do a high-speed taxi test of the brakes. When we asked for the taxi test on [the] runway; the Tower said that we should expect considerable delay and pointed out that there were several aircraft in the queue for the runway. A Controller came on asked us if we were ready for the taxi test immediately. We said; 'Yes'. As pilot flying; I advanced the power levers to full power and released the brakes which had tested normally during the taxi. We accelerated to about 90 knots and then immediately applied the brakes. Much to my surprise the aircraft pulled strongly to the right due to the fact that the left antiskid had disabled the brakes on the left side.I came close to hitting a runway edge light on the right side. I partially released the right brakes and used the tiller to steer back to the left. With that it became apparent that we were not going to stop before reaching the runway end. I used the tiller to straddle a light at the runway end. The airplane stopped on the chevrons of the emergency overrun. We made a 180-degree turn back to the runway with no damage to the airplane or to any lights. I had fully expected the brakes on both sides to work. I felt rushed by the Tower and got too fast before I started applying the brakes; because I wanted to minimize my time on the runway. Next time I would initiate the brake application at a much slower speed.


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


Synopsis: FA10 flight crew reported a runway excursion after a failed high speed brake test.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was leading a flight of two [warbirds] to land at ZZZ on Runway XX right which is the north runway. Runway XX left is the south parallel runway. Tower cleared us to land. I was a straight in and Aircraft Y was a go-around. Aircraft Y announced that he was breaking to land from the overhead. Tower instructed him to break left which is non-standard when landing on the right runway since it would be across the left runway and we are always instructed to break right when landing on the right runway. As I touched down I heard tower instruct Aircraft Y to break left and immediately heard tower repeat break left as the tower operator noticed that Aircraft Y was breaking right. I looked straight up through my bubble canopy and saw Aircraft Y make an immediate correction and enter the left break as instructed. At no time did Aircraft Y make more than a 10-20 degree turn before correcting.  The following day I was notified that there was a CFI with a student in a Cessna 172 in the right downwind to Runway XX right who was startled and was claiming that there was a near miss between herself and Aircraft Y although it is hard to imagine how that would be possible given that the Cessna would have been in downwind offset from the runway by quite a distance.  Since I was leading the flight of 2 aircraft and was carrying the squawk and ADS-B for the flight; I am concerned that a complaint may be incorrectly filed against me even though I had landed at the time the incident occurred.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that his number two aircraft broke off the wrong way and was directed by ATC to correct his heading to avoid a collision with another aircraft.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other After arrival
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I wanted to report an incident involving a COVID positive passenger on Flight ABC ZZZ-ZZZZ. Upon arrival in ZZZZ flight attendants were made aware of a COVID positive passenger. The rep announced over the PA the passenger's name; and seat number - and said multiple times for the passenger to remain on the plane and not to deplane. After all the passengers have deplaned. The flight attendants and pilots stayed on the aircraft as the medic was assessing the affected passenger. Shortly after the medic left; he returned and checked our temperatures. We were told we could clear customs and go to the hotel. We were later told; that a minimum crew of 3 needed to stay behind on the plane until the COVID positive passenger had deplaned. 3 FAs stayed behind until the passenger deplaned and the rest went to the hotel.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that upon arrival at destination; a COVID-19 positive passenger on board as well as the crew; had to be medically assessed before being allowed to leave the aircraft.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
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 flying [high wing single engine aircraft] with an instructor on board; cleared to land on downwind leg. Tower instructed another aircraft of the same make/model to fly upwind to the [landmark]. Next instruction to them was to follow traffic [us] entering the 45 on the [landmark]. They did not respond. Next comm on Tower was if they had traffic to follow in sight. The student quickly responded traffic in sight. They were already too close to my aircraft by then. I had to maneuver in the pattern and drop to 600 ft. on downwind to avoid the aircraft. This was a close call.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC in the traffic pattern while preparing to land. The pilot reported the other aircraft did not follow instructions from the Tower. The intruding aircraft caused the reporter to take evasive action.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VDI.Airport, GA
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Jacksonville Center's radio coverage at Vidalia; GA and Reidsville; GA is limited to about 2;000 to 3;000 MSL; or about 2;000 AGL. Most of the terrain in this area is about 200 feet above sea level. The problem is we are at the very edge of radio reception on certain frequencies. The designated frequency for ZJX at RVJ and VDI is 127.57. This frequency works best when the remote transmitter at Alma; GA and AMG (VOR and airport co-located) is operational. The problem is this remote transmitter is frequently out of service. When remote is working we can pick up ZJX on 127.57 down to about 2;000 MSL. When not in operation aircraft must be at or above 3;000 MSL and it is still spotty reception on 127.57. The next closest frequency for JAX is 132.5. The remote transmitter for this frequency is located at Millen; GA. Millen is about the same distance (30 to 40 miles from VDI as AMG); but it seems we are able to pick up ZJX on this frequency constantly down to about 1;500 MSL.My question is how do we go about making an official request to get the 132.5 frequency for VDI and RVJ? It will greatly improve safety and communications in VMC and IMC conditions when aircraft must descend below 1;000 or even 1;500 AGL for approaches. There have been numerous occasions when relays through other aircraft have been required to maintain contact with ZJX during instrument approaches and cancelling IFR flight plans and VFR flight following into VDI and RVJ. I am certain this must be frustrating for the center controllers as well as transient aircraft passing through our area.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reports that the designated frequency for ZJX at RJV and VDI airports is not usable below 2;000 FT while frequency 132.5 can be used down to 1;000 FT. It is suggested that the FAA make 132.5 the designated frequency.
Date: 201601
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Both Captain and FO had gone through all of the download procedures for the new App and most current version. I had to call IT twice because my iPad was not downloading correctly. The second phone consultation with IT; the day before I started this trip; seemed successful. The first 3 days of this 4-day trip were normal for both of us. On the LAST leg of a 6-leg trip; both of our iPads simultaneously quit working. I tried to look for something in the FOM; tried opening [app]; and got nothing but gray pages. I rebooted my iPad; and then tried to retrieve [data] again after the power-up - this time; I got only an error message. I told the FO. He then tried his; and had the exact same experience. Therefore; even though we had the flight manual; we had no 737 Flight Manual; no Flight Operations Manual (FOM). All of the iPad functions other than [critical data] appeared to work normally. After reestablishing a WiFi connection on the ground; my [iPad] started working again.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported his iPad malfunctioned in flight; leaving him without access to critical data.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
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: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the TRUPS RNAV STAR into DCA; we were following the step downs; and at one point trusted the VDI to keep us out of trouble. I am not sure if there was a momentary glitch with the VDI but I noticed; approaching WEEDU that we needed to lose about three thousand feet in about seven miles. I mentioned that to the First Officer and he threw the 'boards' out and aggressively descended. I am not sure that we actually made the crossing restriction due to the fact that WEEDU dropped out from the CDU and the ND about a mile or more before we got there. My first thought is I needed to pay better attention to the distance between fixes. Secondly; trusting the VDI might not be the best course of action; even though the company recommends the use of the VDI. This time it misled us a bit.




Synopsis: An MD-80 flight crew placed too much confidence in the ability of the VDI to assure compliance with the crossing restriction at WEEDU on the TRUPS RNAV STAR inbound to DCA. Aggressive action after recognizing the failure may have resulted in making the crossing.