elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201301
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SFO
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Several [B757] aircraft have the incorrect safety video preloaded that tell passengers to use their seat cushion instead of a life vest for floatation. When noticing this discrepancy during safety checks I notified the crew that a live safety demo with life vests would be performed. The current announcement booklet dated December 2012 appears to be somewhat disorganized with various information spread across pages. When reading the section on floatation; I inadvertently read the life vest information for the [incorrect] configuration. Thinking back on the incident; I am not certain whether I read the over-water or domestic section pertaining to exit doors; window exits and exit path lighting (the difference being that the over-water section makes mention of rafts whereas the domestic section does not). Since we have been finding several aircraft contain the incorrect safety demo video I am concerned this incident may be happening to others as well since the new announcement book is not as clear as it should be. I was not aware of this at the time until talking with crew members after the flight about the announcement book and then looking over the sections I had read and realizing that I had made the errors.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant noticed a B757 with the incorrect safety video on board and elected to use the live demonstration method to deliver the safety information to the passengers. The publication used as the source of the verbiage for the live demonstration was found to be disorganized; resulting in the incorrect information being provided to the passengers.
Date: 202112
Location: MCO.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large 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 MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the visual approach to [Runway] 36L in MCO; I noticed a white drone flying below me and off my left wing.  I reported the incident to MCO Tower to warn them and other aircraft. I estimated it to be 200 feet or more below me and 500 feet away from me. We didn't make any changes to our course and it wasn't an immediate safety hazard to us but obviously felt the need to report it. This report is just to document what happened.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a near miss with a UAS while on a visual approach to a Class B airport. Flight crew notified ATC.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were departing CLT Runway 36R on a MERIL RNAV SID. The aircraft was a 737-300 series. Takeoff was normal. LNAV was engaged at 400 AGL; and it engaged normally. At 1;000 AGL; pilot flying called for climb thrust; speed 210; and engaged the autopilot. The autopilot did engage on B channel. Shortly after that; both FDs biased out of view; LNAV disengaged; and the autopilot disconnected. We tried a reset of the FD's and both autopilots; but we could not get them to immediately engage. LNAV was re-engaged successfully; but since we could not get the FDs and autopilot back right away; I advised CLT Departure that we needed a vector; and could not continue the RNAV SID. He gave us a heading of 090 degrees. The autopilot and FDs were engaged again soon after we were placed on the vector heading. Shortly after that; he asked us if we could accept direct LILIC on the MERIL RNAV SID. We preceded direct LILIC; flight plan route. The rest of the flight was uneventful with no further discrepancies noted. I could find no obvious reason for the disconnect of the FDs; LNAV; and autopilot initially. I decided that since these RNAV SIDs are closely spaced; and since we were now flying the aircraft manually; it was prudent to get an initial vector off the SID. Once the FDs and autopilot were re-engaged; we were able to go direct to a more distant fix; outside of the busy terminal environment; and not close to the airport. LNAV was monitored with no additional discrepancies noted. All other autopilot/flight director systems worked normally for the rest of the flight.I suspect this was just a spurious glitch in the flight director/autopilot system. I have flown many RNAV departures with the 737. They usually perform flawlessly.




Synopsis: When their FMS and associated autoflight systems malfunctioned while flying an RNAV SID the flight crew of a B737-300 requested and received vectors from Departure Control.  Functionality was later restored and the flight continued to destination.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use R2501
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was told by the Controller working the mid shift that night about a real time release of airspace R2501. The airspace was supposed to be active FL460 and below until XA00z. Controller said the OM (Operations Manager) on the mid brought paperwork showing real time release from FL460 and below to FL280 and below. The fax paperwork from the OM said from 1200 to 1400 to FL280 and below and remain like that all day. I sent numerous aircraft through the airspace. The airspace on the scope was lighted up to be active FL280 and below. Everything was showing that the airspace was not active above FL280. I was called by another Controller that the airspace was active FL460 and below. I than turned aircraft out of airspace. All the information I received was saying I was doing the right thing. This has happened numerous time and very unprofessional. We need to have a better system or something in place to make his not happen again.Need to have more paper trail or recording the lines when the military is coordinating the airspace and altitudes.


Second narrative: An Airspace Revision was brought to the area during the mid shift by the OM (Operations Manager) for R2501 A-E. The revision stated in the coordinated by section SK/CK with GMT Date/Time. The revision showed R2501 A-E hot at and below 150. Then R2501 A-E hot at and below 280. Aircraft were descending per the appropriate arrivals (the MDNYT2 and then the ANJLL4) into LAX. I was informed six days later that R2501 A-E was actually hot AOB 150 until XA00; then hot AOB 460 until XC00; then hot AOB 280 starting at XC00. My supervisor notified me that multiple aircraft traversed the airspace while it was active (between XA00 and XC00) and live military ammunition was being fired. Apparently the paperwork received was incorrectly coordinated.I feel if military is going to change airspace they should have to send an email or fax so there is evidence of who coordinated changes and at what time instead of a phone call that could be made by anyone on an unrecorded line.


Synopsis: ZLA Center controllers reported a communication breakdown that resulted in several aircraft being vectored through restricted airspace.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out at approximately FL280 we lost the left hydraulic quantity. We did the appropriate checklist; advised ATC and returned to the departure airport.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer experiences a loss of the left hydraulic quantity at FL280 and returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BTV.Airport, VT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BTV
ATC / advisory: Tower BTV
Second aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Once we were switched to Tower frequency the controller instructed us to slow to final approach speed. We were number one for the field but another aircraft needed to takeoff and a C182 was in the pattern for 19. We were landing 15. While on final the ATC controller instructed the C182 to make right traffic. They informed us they would be at 1300 over the [15] numbers. The C182 was actually on about 3/4 mile west and at 1300 but descending. We were on final for 15 and on glide path. We came within 350 feet or less of the C182. This caused us to be in a no go around situation as we had no maneuvering speed or room once we spotted the airplane and got the TA Traffic call. The only reason we didn't get an RA was because we were too low to the ground on the glideslope. We informed tower that was unacceptable as well as requested the tower supervisor's phone number. We debriefed with him once we landed back to base and explained the situation. He informed us they were operating within their allowances even though it's probably not a good choice. ATC aligning the aircraft incorrectly sequenced for the runways. The C182 being too wide and into our protected final. Loss of Situational awareness on both ATC and C182. If we would have had an out we would have taken it however after spotting the airplane visually we realized we were in a bad spot. A go around would have caused more harm than good and would have most likely caused a midair collision. Have ATC space aircraft better out for that runway so as not to attempt low flybys on landing aircraft for runway 15. Instruct the C182 about what over the numbers means. The BTV pattern procedures need to be reviewed and either have the airplane on the downwind go outside of ours or ATC sequence the two so as not to meet at the same time. Also by having us slow early this probably also contributed to the two aircraft meeting so closely.




Synopsis: ERJ Captain reported a NMAC with a C182 on final for Runway 15 at BTV.
Date: 201511
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cabin Crew Seat
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: EMB 145 aircraft were originally equipped with acoustical curtains to keep Flight Attendant (FA) seat area quieter and warmer due to the position of FA seat next to Main Cabin Door (MCD). The curtains were removed many years ago or became worn and not replaced. As the planes have aged the door seals are worn and a loud squealing noise is a common everyday occurrence on each flight; some worse than others. I am a former flight attendant with severe ear damage due to flying on EMB 145's for close to 18 years.On this particular flight the noise from doors was so loud passengers in seats 1A and 5C were holding their hands over their ears and the noise was still extremely loud 19 rows away from MCD and GSD. This applies to most of the EMB 145 fleet and many flight attendants have had Eustachian tube dysfunction and have had FMLA for the issue. Some have Tinnitus or constant ringing in ears which is not curable by surgery or hearing aids.




Synopsis: Retired EMB145 Flight Attendant reported hearing loss due to poor main cabin door seals and years of flying these aircraft. The aircraft were delivered with acoustic curtains to separate the Flight Attendant jump seat from the main cabin door but have disappeared over the years and have not been replaced.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CZUL.ARTCC, PQ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center CZUL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Dispatcher re-release #2 with route change. He provided a new ICAO flight plan to crew but never filed it with ATC. Flight crew resolved with Montreal Center and communicated with Dispatch to re-file with upcoming centers.


Second narrative: About four hours into our flight I returned from break. I received a briefing from the flying pilots. In addition to this briefing they informed me that Montreal Center had questioned our route of flight. The route we were flying did not match what Montreal Center was showing. The crew contacted Dispatch to find out what the discrepancy was. Dispatch reviewed the paperwork and informed them that they changed our flight plan after the Captain had requested additional fuel; but never filed that flight plan with ATC. When we downloaded the flight plan to our iPad's we had already received release 2-which is not uncommon-and it had the revised fuel and the new flight plan that had not been filed with ATC. We never saw release 1 which did have the filed flight plan. There was no mention of a route change from Dispatch just that additional fuel had been added. In the flight planning area; we all checked the ICAO flight plan against the operating flight plan; and they did match. I was not aware that the ICAO flight plan could be displayed on the paperwork; while another flight plan had been filed. When we received our PDC was 'as filed' so there was no indication that any changes had been made to our route. Many aviation errors are attributable to a lack of communication. This one is no exception. While we had no idea that the new flight plan had not been filed I do feel that going forward it would be in our best interest to continue to review any release changes thoroughly and make sure our Dispatcher fully agrees with those changes.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported Dispatch failure to file a re-release #2 with ATC resulting in a course deviation.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown; Safety Analyst
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Passenger] had two 425g containers of pesticide in his checked baggage.Containers were found by the TSA during the security screening of baggage.Items removed by the TSA.PAX notified. Passenger is a [frequent flier member]. Nothing more to add.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Safety Inspector reported passenger had Dangerous Goods packed in checked baggage which were removed by TSA during security screening of checked baggage.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AMA.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Champion Citabria Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E AMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB; TRACON AMA
Second aircraft: Aero Commander 500 Series
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: TRACON was providing VFR radar advisories to both aircraft listed; ARTCC Sector called TRACON and asked if we were aware that the Rocket Launch Area in TRACON's airspace was active surface to 28;500 feet; because both aircraft were on a heading to enter the airspace. TRACON was not aware it was active and never received a call from the user for the rocket area nor was there a NOTAM that was issued for any airport nor nav-aid in a 50 mile radius of TRACON airspace. The airspace went active and TRACON was unaware of its use until ARTCC notified TRACON two and a half hours later. I have called Flight Service Station twice and talked to their supervisor to voice my concerns. Both times the supervisor did nothing to fix the issue. The NOTAMS issued a year ago showed the NOTAMS under ZZZ VORTAC; now are hidden under different facilities are not seen by TRACON controllers.  The NOTAM about the airspace should be attached/listed under the VORTAC which is in TRACON airspace. The NOTAMs reference the air space position using radial and DME off the VORTAC so it should be listed under the VORTAC NOTAMs.




Synopsis: An Air Traffic Controller reported a rocket launch protected airspace within a TRACON boundary. The TRACON was working two aircraft heading toward the airspace and had not been advised the airspace was in use.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: As I was flying to ZZZ; right about over MHT [VOR]; I encountered continues moderate turbulence at 6;000 feet; I requested to climb to 8;000 feet; as I was climbing ATC advised me that larger airplanes had reported moderate turbulence between 6;000 and 8;000 then; when I got out of the clouds at 8;000 feet; for a brief moment it got a little better; but; when I got in the clouds again; it got very aggressive turbulent again; the airplane made abrupt movements; life jackets coming loose and over the cabin; safety briefing card flying around and the passenger getting shacked back there; immediately I requested descent to 6;000 and then to 5;000; then at 5;000 I saw ZZZ airport; requested and got the visual approach and landed.




Synopsis: Air Taxi Captain reported encountering 'aggressive' turbulence during cruise near MHT VOR.