elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Low and dropping ceilings forced us to fly very low above the water's surface. Planned to maneuver around the pier around 800-1000 feet; but dropping ceilings forced us lower. Decided against proceeding lower into descending ceilings and turned around to exit the area of low ceiling.




Synopsis: GA pilot instructor reported the ceilings kept dropping forcing them to fly lower than planned over the surface of the water.  Reporter stated they ultimately decided to turn around and exit the area.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While in operations; I set up the tablet to display the QRH; opened up to the Aborted Engine Start procedure. I then went on to other applications. At push; the flying FO started the engines and I went back to Checklist. Thankfully the QRH was not needed as the tabs had all closed.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported that after setting up his EFB tablet to display the QRH; all the tabs had closed at pushback.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just before liftoff we noticed a large amount of vibration and noise coming from the nose gear. We both concluded it was a nose tire that had been damaged. We left the gear down and notified ATC who vectored us into a holding pattern. I contacted Maintenance Control and discussed options with them. We came to a decision to divert to ZZZ1 due to the low visibility in ZZZ (about 3;000 RVR); good weather at ZZZ1; long runways; emergency equipment availability; maintenance availability; and because we were still around 49;000 pounds and wanted to burn off fuel to get below the max landing weight. I called the Flight Attendant and informed her of our situation; directing her to prepare the cabin for an emergency landing. We made an ILS approach to a missed approach so the Tower could get a look at our nose gear as we passed over the runway. They informed us that the right nose tire was damaged; but the left tire appeared intact. We flew a visual pattern and landed with plenty of vibration from the nose gear; but good directional control. We were able to taxi slowly to the gate with the fire/rescue truck following us.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain experiences a possible tire failure at V1 and elects to leave the gear down and discuss the situation with Maintenance control. All agree to divert to a suitable airport with better weather; where a fly by reveals the right nose tire is damaged. An uneventful landing ensues.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Saw a man cough without his mask on takeoff. He was sleeping when I starting service when I was back to him I did tap his shoulder to let him know that his mouth and nose did need to be covered. It woke him up but I wouldn't want him to cough again without it because people are seated directly in front of him. I did say it politely though.He also did not have his nose covered on his way to the bathroom. He also mentioned it to me after in a rather upset manner that I woke him up but it was okay that everyone else had theirs down because they were eating and drinking. Had he worn his mask when I heard him cough and worn it properly after I would not have had to wake him up. I was trying to explain why I did what I did but he walked away. I stand by it because right now safety and health care [are] the same thing and I'm protecting everyone when it comes to making sure masks are worn correctly. Also while he was being upset with me he didn't have his nose covered by his mask. So he was still wearing it incorrectly after being told.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger was non-compliant with wearing a face mask during flight.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on a flight from to SLC. During my assent to my final cruising altitude; both of my GPSs stopped working. I diverted my attention to reacquiring the satellites. While rebooting the GPS radio; I inadvertently passed through my assigned altitude of 15;000 FT by 500 FT. I immediately turned off the autopilot and descended back to the altitude assigned. Because of a failure of both of my GPSs; I let my attention be diverted too much so that I lost my scan.

Callback: The reporter stated that he is not certain; but thought that maybe this issue was aircraft equipment related because it occurred two days in a row. One of the GPS receivers took about 15 minutes to come back online. ATC did not have any outrage reports for either day but his flight tracks were near both a MOA and Restricted area so the military had operations in that area both days. If actual interference existed; he cannot says.



Synopsis: While flying to SLC a light twin aircraft lost reception on both GPS receivers and while resetting them climbed through his assigned 15;000 FT altitude.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: 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 Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After departing Houston; and flying an assigned heading; we were assigned a clearance of direct MONNT. MONNT was not a fix on the route programmed in the MCDU. We stated this and asked the Controller to spell the fix. The Departure Controller queried us as to our assigned route. We believed our cleared route was the LEONA 7 (LOA7) departure; which was the filed route. He asked us then to verify we were cleared via the GIFFA 4 departure. After reviewing the PDC slip; we realized the filed route is printed just below the cleared route and was mistaken as the ATC clearance during preflight. ATC asked us to call a phone number upon landing to help clear up a systemic problem between Clearance and Departure control. ATC cleared us to a fix that was not on our planned route. The PDC slip was misinterpreted during MCDU programming. The format of the PDC should never contain both the filed AND cleared routes. The clearance slip should only have the cleared route printed on the PDC slip. This would eliminate any chance of confusion between cleared vs filed routes. Filing of flight plans using ATC preferred routing would also minimize the chance of receiving a clearance that differs from the filed flight plan.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reports confusing the PDC filed SID with the cleared SID; which were both printed on the PDC; during FMGC programming. The error is discovered in flight when ATC clears the crew to a point that is not in the programmed route.
Date: 201808
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Customer] tried to tender a shipment to [Company] at the [Company] cargo facility. 2 skids and all boxes were shrink wrapped and cardboard markings of UN3481.




Synopsis: Cargo Ground Agent reported shipper attempted to ship HAZMAT shipment as NON-HAZMAT cargo.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream III (G1159A)
Operator: Corporate
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Maintenance Audit
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Logbook Entry; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Gulfstream 1159A aircraft was operated in March 2012 with a Major Unapproved Alteration reportedly with local Federal Agency knowledge. Said Major Unapproved Alteration is a large cutout in the pressure vessel lower skin. The Major Unapproved Alteration was not deemed structurally acceptable by the Designated Engineering Representative (DER).Upon submission for approval via [FAA] Form 8110-3; the existing alteration was deemed structurally unacceptable; nor in compliance with the FARs. The Major Unapproved Alteration was significantly modified prior to obtaining Federal Agency approval via DER.




Synopsis: A Gruman-Gulfstream 1159A aircraft was reported to have operated with a major unapproved alteration of the pressure vessel lower skin. A large cutout repair was deemed structurally unacceptable; nor in compliance with the FARs by a Designated Engineering Representative (DER).
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OPF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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 giving a tour along the shoreline. I reported my position on the published beach frequency. I alerted the frequency that I would be crossing over to the shoreline and descending to 800 feet and would be proceeding southbound along the shore. I listened to the frequency and heard no traffic in my vicinity. I looked carefully for traffic; but saw none. Before I had reached the shoreline; a helicopter (larger and faster than me) cut across my path. I could not divert to the right. He was passing left to right and towards me. I slowed down; pushed the nose down and tipped the plane to the left. If the helicopter had not have seen me I would have hit it. I could not have maneuvered out of the way in time to avoid it. He was way too close; within 20 feet. He pulled to the right and descended. That area is extremely high traffic. I had all of my lights on. The helicopter had no lights on. Sometimes the lights are helpful for spotting traffic. The helicopter was not using the published beach frequency. The airspace is uncontrolled. Sometimes HWO will give you advisories until you reach the shoreline; but not always. Today they were unable. If the other aircraft had been on the frequency they might have heard my call and been more vigilant. I will have my passengers help me to look for traffic next time.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter in the vicinity of HWO airport.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GSP.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSP
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the Visual Approach into Runway 4 at GSP about 12 miles south of the airport. 20 seconds later an unknown Aircraft Y departed GMU airport which is just a few miles from GSP. Aircraft Y was on a 1200 code not talking to approach control and was departing out the gap in the Class C to the southeast that lets planes fly under the GSP approach at 1800 feet. Aircraft Y was indicating 1900 feet. This happens all the time. I advised Aircraft X that a plane was departing GMU and would be at 1900 feet over MULDE (the final approach fix) on the approach. Aircraft X acknowledged the traffic; but never said they had the traffic in sight. The two got within 300 feet vertical causing the Captain (CA) to go off in the TRACON before both continued safely to their destinations. We have been [reporting] this exact scenario for months in hopes that the Class C will get changed. The fact that we cannot clear an aircraft into the airport the Class C is meant to protect without getting a CA or RA completely defeats the purpose of having the Class C. The Class C is supposed to protect the main airport. It does not. Allowing aircraft we are not talking with to fly between 300-500 feet of aircraft on an ILS approach let alone a Visual Approach is dangerous. If both aircrafts altimeters are off there is a risk of a Collison. If the aircraft going into GSP is a heavy there is a major risk of a wake turbulence upset of the plane beneath with no altitude to recover. I am getting tired of breaking IFR planes out to keep them safe from VFR aircraft that have found a loophole in the design of the Class C.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported an unidentified VFR aircraft climbed to an altitude below Class C airspace; but was still in confliction with another aircraft on an approach to the Class C airport.
Date: 201812
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The USPS consigned a Priority Mail parcel containing Lithium ION Battery UN3481. [Air carrier] does not accept undeclared dangerous goods [such as] lithium batteries. This mail has been rejected back to the USPS.This has become a daily occurrence with finding lithium ion batteries in mail parcels.




Synopsis: Airline Cargo Agent reported refusing incorrectly packaged/labeled USPS mail parcel.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We departed ABQ on the MNZNO RNAV SID. Several miles prior to YUGLU; which has [an at or below] 9;000 FT published restriction; ATC cleared us to climb to FL200. He did not use the 'climb via' verbiage. The clearance was [simply to] '...climb and maintain FL200.' The pilot flying removed the 9;000 FT restriction from the LEGS page.We were both; however; not sure if that's what ATC wanted so; after a few seconds waiting for the frequency to clear; I asked ATC if that clearance was unrestricted? He replied; 'Comply with all restrictions.' At this point; we were climbing through 9;000 FT and got to about 9;300 FT before leveling off at 9;000 FT. After discussing the situation with the PF; we both were under the impression that when ATC issues an amended altitude clearance on a SID and doesn't use the 'climb via' or other limiting verbiage that the SID's altitude restrictions are deleted.


Second narrative: There is confusion as to what ATC wants and what we should be doing with these RNAV departures. If ATC wanted us to comply with restrictions; why didn't they issue a 'climb via' clearance or simply state; 'Climb to FL200; comply with restrictions.' The Controller NEVER said anything like this. All he said was; 'Climb to FL200.' Unless I am wrong; that clearance relieves me of [intervening published] crossing restrictions. If we had not asked him if he wanted an unrestricted climb; we would have had an altitude deviation. We had; in fact; climbed to 9;300 FT so it might have happened anyway. One of us made a mistake; whether it is ATC or us is what I really want to know.


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew; cleared by a PDC to depart ABQ on the '...MNZNO departure; maintain 9;000 FT...' was re-cleared after takeoff to 'climb to FL200' by Departure Control. This clearance was given prior to YUGLO which is restricted to be crossed 'at or below 9;000 FT. Confusion ensued as the flight crew was uncertain whether departure's clearance relieved them from the restriction at YUGLO.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HEQ.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF HEQ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed at HEQ to drop off a mechanic to pick up an aircraft at the airport. I made standard radio calls and on final to Runway 14 I noticed a Thrush aircraft on downwind who made no calls. I landed and taxied to the end. I exited the runway on the turn-around to allow him to land. The Thrush made an approach and went missed and appeared to depart to the south. I made a call that I was taxiing back on the runway (as there is no taxiway to take). As I was halfway down the runway the mechanic I was with stated the Thrush was touching down behind us (Runway 32). I accelerated as quickly as I safely could; and the mechanic stated the Thrush closed to within 1;000 feet of our tail. The aircraft would have made contact with us if we had not accelerated down the runway as we did.




Synopsis: C206 pilot reported landing on Runway 14 at HEQ and sighting a Thrush on downwind. The reporter pulled into the turnaround at the end of Runway 14 and watched the Thrush make a low approach and appear to depart to the south. He announced a back taxi on Runway 32; but halfway down the runway his passenger reported the Thrush was landing behind them. Taxi speed was greatly increased and a collision was avoided.