elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OGG.Airport, HI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C OGG
ATC / advisory: Tower OGG
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I plugged into Clearance Delivery and received a briefing.  I was briefed that Aircraft X was standing by for a clearance to LAX and that the coordination with HCF had been completed and just needed to issue the clearance.  Once the briefing was complete I issued Aircraft X their clearance to Los Angeles via the SWEEP1 Departure SWEEP as filed; Climb via SID except maintain FL360; on departure fly heading 020.  Aircraft X readback; 'cleared to Los Angeles via the SWEEP 1 Departure SWEEP as filed; climb and maintain FL360; on departure fly heading 020.'  I corrected Aircraft X to climb via the SID except maintain FL360; rest of readback correct and then got a correct readback on the altitude.  Shortly after Aircraft X departed the Cab Coordinator got a call from Approach asking if we had assigned Aircraft X the SWEEP 1 Departure or assigned a heading of 020.  The Cab Coordinator said we had assigned both.  We were then informed that Aircraft X had flown the SWEEP 1 Departure instead of the 020 heading. The LOA between OGG and HCF says to clear aircraft to the U.S. mainland as filed with an initial departure heading of 020.  Aircraft X had filed the SWEEP1 Departure which instructs to depart on a heading of 024 and after leaving 2;100 turn right to a heading of 095 to intercept the OGG 069R to SWEEP intersection.  There has been some confusion from pilots on whether they should fly the 020 heading or the SWEEP1 Departure and with the new 'Climb via SID' phraseology there has been even more questions from pilots about what they are supposed to do.  Since Aircraft X did not question the clearance I thought that he understood to fly the heading 020.  I believe an easy way to fix this problem would be to change the OGG/HCF LOA to read that U.S. mainland flights are cleared as filed or to the first fix after a filed SID and depart on a 020 heading.




Synopsis: OGG Controller reports of a problem with assigning a heading and a Climb via SID together on departure.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Before departure while at the gate; the flight attendant informed the Captain of 12 open seats in the back of the airplane. We knew we were oversold for the flight so it didn't make sense that we had open seats. We then realized that this was a newly reconfigured aircraft with more seats in the main cabin and the gate agent confirmed she was unaware of this as the info was not in her computer; it still had the old seat count. Once Load Planning and Dispatch were notified; we boarded several more passengers and pushed off the gate. While Load Planning worked the programming changes; the Captain confirmed the fuel was OK with Dispatch. We eventually received a load closeout with the correct passenger count and then we realized that the CG was different because of the new configuration. At that time the realization dawned on us that we had unwittingly flown the first leg with the wrong CG because we didn't know that the planning software had not been updated with the aircraft's new configuration. Obviously; when an aircraft gets reconfigured; make sure the planning software gets updated so that all the paperwork is in order.




Synopsis: A flight crew discovered during passenger boarding that their aircraft has been configured with twelve additional seats; which customer service and load planning are not aware of. This aircraft had flown several legs prior to this discovery and the basic operating weight and CG had changed.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LZU.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While we were receiving flight following from Approach we spotted what we believed was a fixed wing UAS heading northbound at 5;300 feet. We spotted a shiny object in front of us which did not make any evasive actions to avoid us. We initiated a climbing right turn to avoid the object. The suspected UAS seemed to be a tailless; fixed wing aircraft with a wingspan of roughly five feet wide. The aircraft was X color; and we did not see any visible engines; or rotors. We contacted Approach and reported the incident as soon as possible roughly 15 to 20 seconds after the event. We queried Approach to confirm if there was any other traffic in the area. They told us that there was no other traffic. They asked us to describe the event in detail which we complied.  Approach said they would pass along the information; and we then continued.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC with a UAV near LZU airport.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Tower, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At approximately XX00 zulu time Aircraft X; called for an offshore transition. The controller was overwhelmed with light to moderate VFR workload and was unable to clear the aircraft through the airspace or to pass along an appropriate clearance to the aircraft. The aircraft then proceeded to go through the airspace without a clearance offshore at approximately 500 feet. The aircraft then proceeded to call the tower for a clearance through the bay for a transition and verified that they violated the airspace. Immediately following the aircraft; Aircraft Y; called for a similar transition. The request was denied by the controller on a clear VFR day. The controller does not understand or know the proper separation between two VFR aircraft. There was no altitude separation which could have been provided; visual separation on a clear VFR day; or radar separation. It was clearly unsafe nor order or expeditious to allow violators through the airspace and then to not be able to have the knowledge of the proper separation available.The controller needs to have remedial training. It is inexcusable for the controller to not know VFR separation rules or for the controller/pilot communication to get so bad that the aircraft simply violates the airspace due to the lack of proper communication from the tower controller. This isn't the first time this controller has had issues and it is a known issue. It is not the responsibility of the Controller-in-Charge to watch constantly what the Local Controller position is doing in order to avoid a possible incident or accident while not being able to focus on their own duties.




Synopsis: SAN Controller describes a session where the local controller does not issue a specific clearance to a VFR request; the aircraft does the request anyway and violates airspace.  Another aircraft does the same thing right afterward; and it doesn't affect the local controller.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Generator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flying approximately 50 miles south of destination in a descent in light rain showers; encountered heavy rain with lightening nearby; aircraft was struck near the right wing area by lightening. Left DC Generator CL illuminated. Ran emergency checklist and cycled DC Generator switch. DC Generator reset and light extinguished. UNS displayed various error messages. No other abnormalities noted. Continued the descent and landed without incident. Encountered a bright flash (fireball) followed by a loud boom and resulting caution light. Occurred due to the proximity of isolated cells in the area; that was not displayed on radar. Stay away from active cells if possible; although there were no indications they were nearby until we were struck.




Synopsis: DHC8-300 Captain reports aircraft was struck by lightening during descent; causing the Left DC Generator to trip off. Flight continues to an uneventful landing at destination airport. Radar did not show any significant weather nearby at the time of the lightening strike.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon go-around for Runway XX @ ZZZ we were on our initial upwind leg at approximately 300 feet AGL when we encountered a yellow colored crop duster within 300 feet above us. There was no prior contact made with us on CTAF frequency nor did we get any response after the near miss. We elected to go back to our base ZZZ1 to do landings there instead. We gave an advisory to two other aircraft operating at ZZZ before leaving.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 pilot reported a near miss with an aircraft while reporter was on upwind on a go-around.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Entertainment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Reaching approximately 10;000 feet; the Captain and I started to smell a strong odor. Within a couple of minutes; the Flight Attendant called up to also report the smell. The Captain instructed the Flight Attendant to turn off the IFE [In Flight Entertainment] system and said we would be landing in a few minutes. The odor seemed to dissipate quite a bit as we continued the approach; and upon reaching the gate; the smell was not perceptible. We informed Maintenance and the Captain filled out a form presented to him by Maintenance Personnel. The way I would describe the odor was burning plastic. I have no idea where the smell originated or what it was.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported strong 'burning plastic' odor in the cockpit and confirmed by flight attendants in the cabin.
Date: 201406
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was dispatched on a [flight] to EGLL that ended up at [8:20 block to block] with no crew augmentation. I didn't find out the Relief Pilot was removed from my trip segment until I reported for duty.  My First Officer is new with very little ETOPs experience at [this company].  I feel this is very unsafe to dispatch without a relief pilot.  We had no crew rest.  I have never flown to London or back without a relief pilot.  I was extremely tired on arrival.  On the return flight we blocked 8:20 as well; again; with no augmentation.  This needs attention as I believe this practice is unsafe.




Synopsis: A B767 Captain reported being assigned and flying a round trip to EGLL--block to block at 8:20 both directions--without a relief pilot.  He felt 'extremely tired on arrival' and believes the assignment to have been unsafe.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: MD-90 Series (DC-9-90) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: B757-300
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Flight 1928 and Flight 1988 are in the SPA/GA High Sector again at the same time. We've been through this for two years now. These two aircraft were involved in one of the worst losses of separation for some time. They routinely take each others' clearances and controllers routinely confuse the call signs. A Controller may not notice these aircraft on frequency and potentially could give a clearance to the wrong one. It has happened before especially when they are on separate frequencies that are paired at the combined sector. One on GA High's frequency (en route) and one climbing off ATL on the SPA High frequency. These call signs were changed at some point last year but here they are again in the system. Get the call signs changed before another extremely dangerous situation occurs.




Synopsis: A ZTL Controller contends that the similar flight numbers used by one airline are extremely dangerous.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MCI.Airport, MO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MCI
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: MCI Ground cleared us to taxi to Runway 19R via Taxiway B. Taxiway B is no longer charted on the MCI taxi diagram from D to A6. It was previously under construction and apparently was taken off the taxi diagram. However it is now open and the MCI ATIS states it is open; yet it is not charted.




Synopsis: 737 Captain reported being cleared to taxi on an uncharted taxiway that was previously closed.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: The aircraft; a TBM8; was landing EGE. He was direct to VOAXA which I had changed to due a faster aircraft behind him. I cleared him to RLG and told him that he could expect the approach from that fix. I also had a G-4 landing EGE. I had him turn to VOAXA since he was faster. I was stepping him down reference the TBM8. I had informed both pilots of the moderate turbulence reports that I received for the approach in to EGE. When the TBM8 was descending out of 170; I gave the G-4 a descent clearance to 170. All of a sudden the TBM8 said that he's in severe turbulence and climbing. He did not say to what altitude. I then called traffic to both aircraft and told the TBM8 when he could; to stop climb. I eventually got the aircraft away from each other; but not before separation had been lost. Both aircraft reported severe turbulence to EGE Tower and we filed PIREPS for them. Recommendation; more traffic calls phraseology.




Synopsis: ZDV Controller described a loss of separation event; when during step down altitude assignments to EGE; one aircraft encountered turbulence and initiated an unexpected climb toward another aircraft.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA; TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Traffic Collision Avoidance System (TCAS)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On departure out of SNA at approximately 1;800 feet AGL; we received a TCAS RA alert with guidance to decrease the rate of climb.  A target was highlighted in red on the PFD; and indicated directly above our aircraft with a 500 foot separation.  The TCAS RA audio and visual indications depicted a decrease in the rate of climb.  When the TCAS announced 'Clear of Conflict;' I informed ATC of our TCAS event; and said we had to lower the nose to decrease our rate of climb to avoid the traffic.  At no time did we acquire a visual sighting of the target aircraft.  I queried the Controller about the traffic; and asked if he had detected a target 500 feet directly above us.  He said no; the nearest target was about 2 miles north of our position.  I do not recall if he mentioned an altitude of that target; or not.  We continued with the departure and were switched to LAX Center.  After about 5 or 10 minutes; I attempted to contact the Departure Control on our VHF 2 radio to inform of my intent to file a NMAC report; but never received a reply.  I asked the LAX Center Controller if she would pass back to the Departure Control our intent to file a NMAC; and she said she would do so.




Synopsis: A319 Captain experiences a TCAS RA departing SNA for traffic 500 feet above requiring a decrease in the rate of climb. ATC advised that there was no traffic within two NM.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: First Officer noticed a stream of water coming off the tailskid on his walk around inspection.  The water was frigid.  ZZZ maintenance was advised and upon further inspection found a fairly large block of ice in the tail of the aircraft which was melting due to the heat from the APU and high ambient temps on the ramp. This block of ice was resting inches from the stabilizer position transmission module and a wire harness that was partly in-cased in ice.  We immediately broke the [Maintenance Document] and waited to here from Maintenance the cause of the problem.  Obviously water was getting into this area and freezing at altitude.  After further inspection; Maintenance found a drain hole that had been blocked by some debris causing water to sit and freeze.  The residual ice was removed; the drain was cleared and Maintenance signed off the aircraft.  We were satisfied with the explanation and the fix and proceeded to operate the flight to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: B767 pilot noticed ice water dripping from tail skid during preflight walk-around. Ice removed and proceeded with flight.