elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: A Flight Attendant called the flight deck during descent 30 minutes prior to landing to inform us about a [passenger] that had fainted on her way to the lavatory. The patient reported to be dizzy and cold; but aware of her surroundings. We tried to get a hold of ArInc; however we had difficulties looking it up; due to our iPads 'freezing'. In addition to this; our ACARS had a time-out link as well. The only one we were able to talk to; was ATC. The event of a sick passenger could not have been avoided; however an easier access to ArInc frequencies; like the blue pages in the QRH or a hard copy in the airplane would have been helpful; as Aircraft X does not have SatCom on board.


Second narrative: During the descent the flight attendants informed us that a passenger had gone unconscious for approximately 5 seconds on the way to the bathroom. I asked the flight attendants to fill out the medical emergency information sheet. I followed the Physician on Call flow guide in the QRH. When the step directed me to contact Dispatch; I was unable to. The ARINC frequencies were removed from our QRH. When I looked in the FOM (Flight Operation Manual) I found the POC (Point of Contact) flow chart; but no link to the ARINC frequency. A word search locked up my mobile 365 and gave no results. The word search for frequency displayed blank white pages that had no information. Our ACARS stopped working. Prior to the incident I was aware that the ARINC frequencies had been removed from our QRH. I was aware that the ARINC frequencies were in the FOM. I was aware that there are direct dispatch VHF frequencies available at certain airports. I was also aware that all the problems I experienced today are known problems with the EFBs. As a result of EFB problems and time constraints of landing the aircraft we were not able to contact dispatch prior to parking the aircraft. The EFB is a known problem to have many 'bugs' which cause the applications to not operate properly or too slowly. Improved testing of the EFB may need to be accomplished prior to the EFB being used operationally.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported being unable to contact Dispatch due to EFB malfunction.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We had 2 reports of cracked wheel tie bolts in one ten hour shift.




Synopsis: Concern is expressed about Maintenance receiving two reports of cracked wheel tie bolts within one work shift.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: TBM 700/TBM 850
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the JANNY3 arrival.  Aircraft Y was level at FL200.  I was stepping Aircraft X down reference Aircraft Y.  Aircraft X was pulling out in front of Aircraft Y and had been cleared to FL210.  The pilot questioned the clearance which I restated and which he read back. Separation was lost when Aircraft X continued to descend.  I instructed him to climb and maintain FL210 and told him that he'd only been cleared to FL210.  I apologized to him twice for the confusion associated with the new procedures we have at ZLA.  Later; when I walked up to the Operations Manager in Charge; he was taking the phone call from the pilot.  The pilot didn't understand that the altitude assignment overrode the Descend Via procedure.In this case; it appears pilots are not being adequately trained in Descend Via procedures.  Somehow; they are not getting the information they need. I don't know who is responsible for the training of corporate pilots but they have been failed by the system.  This is without question a very serious safety issue.  As a controller who loves what I do and the pilots I do it for; it is heartbreaking to have a pilot deviation in my sector.  I would much rather be the one who made the mistake. The video and audio recording of this incident proved that; as the OMIC told me; I 'did everything right.'  There is absolutely no comfort in that.




Synopsis: ZLA Center Controller reported that two aircraft were being stepped down and the higher aircraft descended to an altitude they were not given; leading to a loss of separation.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Possible flaps 1 takeoff. PM reported after clean up; we may have had flaps 1 for departure vice normal flaps 5 setting. During the before takeoff checklist PF checked flap indicator and believed to have seen flaps appropriately configured at flaps 5. Rotation seemed normal with no indication of tail strike during liftoff. Rotation was easy; aircraft flew off ground normally.Performance parameters:V1 139VR 143V2 146Rotation occurred approximately 147 kts nose attitude approximately 8 degrees pitch. I still find it difficult to believe I missed this during the before takeoff checks. Possible expectation bias. Make sure aircraft is configured appropriately during before takeoff checks.


Second narrative: Possible fatigue-related error. Leg 2 of 2. About 13 hours since initial wake up. Aircraft show; walk-around; pre-flight; pushback; start and taxi were uneventful. Timing was methodical. At no time did I feel rushed.


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported may have taken off with flaps 1 instead of the planned and calculated flaps 5.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center MMFR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Doing the arrival into MMMX (Mexico City) at dusk in the rain. Conditions are not terrible; really don't impact this problem. Told to descend via the AVSAR1C arrival; and both the FO and I are pleasantly surprised that the usual nonsense of turning to multiple headings and intercepting multiple radials isn't happening. We get a straight descent via the arrival until we are only 3 miles from Santa Lucia (SLM). As usual in MMMX; the radio frequency is very congested; with very lengthy conversations in Spanish between pilots and controllers; multiple pilots stepping on each others transmissions; etc. There is no way for us to speak with ATC; luckily we don't need to as all is going well. Then just three miles from SLM; we hear the controller say 'turn to a heading of 220 degrees; intercept the Mateo 320 radial inbound; cleared for the ILS 5R approach; slow to 210 knots.' We query him to confirm the radial; heading and speed again; then he's off and gone in another lengthy conversation in Spanish. All this happens at the very last moment; and while the FO is flying; I am left leafing through multiple pages on the iPad looking for somewhere that the Mateo identifier is listed. It can't be found. I know it's co-located with Mavek; but none of the charts we are using; (STAR; ILS 5R approach) show Mateo; they all show Mavek. This is an extremely uncomfortable situation; looking through charts for a missing identifier while flying blindly through MMEX arrival airspace; hoping that you haven't already blasted through the assigned radial that was supposed to have been intercepted. Finally; I find the identifier for Mateo (SMO) buried among much tiny text on the 11-0A plate.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported concern about a possible track deviation when he had difficulty finding the identifier for Mateo while on approach to MMMX.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CMA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CMA
ATC / advisory: Tower CMA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATC cleared myself for the overhead approach following a twin. I responded several times stating I do not have the twin in sight and was told to break left at the departure end of the runway following the twin who was in the left break. At approximately 1;500 feet MSL I looked down as I banked to see the twin 50-100 feet directly below me breaking left. My altitude restriction assigned by the Tower was 1;200 feet. Had I descended lower to my assigned altitude; the chances of a midair collision would have been significant. My corrective action was to level off and extend further upwind.




Synopsis: The pilot reported a near mid-air collision at CMA while cleared for the break and following another aircraft on the same break. He had told the Tower several times that he did not have the aircraft ahead in sight.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OGG.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Windshear
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OGG
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the pilot flying and we were heading directly for OLONE expecting the RNAV 20 Approach into OGG 20. Approach changed our approach to the VOR 20 and put us on a vector inside KRANE intersection to avoid a buildup that was over KRANE. My First Officer quickly loaded the VOR OGG 20 Approach and we performed a quick brief of the approach. We were cleared for the approach behind [another] aircraft. We were in IMC prior to MIKEY intersection and received a windshear alert which we both noted; and continued on the approach. We both noted instruments were cross checked with no flags and continued past MIKEY. Visibility was low with rain which created the illusion of being high on the approach. With the field now in sight I selected vertical speed down 1000 feet per minute. The altitude window was spun to a higher altitude. We descended below MDA of 400 feet and received a 'Terrain; Terrain' alert from being low. I added power to regain altitude above the MDA. We maintained visual of the runway and landed. We failed to catch the altitude had been spun to a higher altitude which caused us to descend below MDA.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported descending below the MDA and a terrain warning while on approach to OGG.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Operations notified me that ZZZ hub had neglected to include some accessible dangerous goods in position 9L on the D.G. (Dangerous Goods) paperwork.  List of D.G. in that position sent to me; which I then forwarded to flight crew when I notified them. List of D.G. copied below. Notified Duty Officer as well; flight continuing to ZZZZ.Since this issue was caused by a failure on the part of the [Load Control] hub; I'm not sure what the root cause was; you would have to contact them.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported Dangerous Goods information; to be provided to flight crew; missing the Accessible Dangerous Goods data. Dispatcher received missing data and forwarded to flight crew prior to departure.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: STP.Tower, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D STP
ATC / advisory: Tower STP
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a practice ILS approach. On the missed approach; I issued runway heading for a jet that would be departing behind and turning northeast. Aircraft Y was told about Aircraft X ahead of him on the departure end of the runway and that he would be turning inside that aircraft; then cleared him for takeoff heading 060. When Aircraft Y was on a roughly half mile departure he advised me; and I could also SEE using TOWER Applied Visual Separation; that he was in the right turn and absolutely no factor for Aircraft X. When Aircraft Y was well established in the turn; as was VISUALLY assured out the window; I shipped him to Departure Control. Once I visually observed Aircraft Y well established in the right turn to 060; I told Aircraft X to turn right heading 040; which is the standard missed approach as per the Letter of Agreement with TRACON and 20 degrees outside of Aircraft Y who made his 060 turn IMMEDIATELY after departure. Both aircraft knew about each other's intent. Runway Separation was applied prior to using visual separation; and then Departure Degree Divergence was applied after visual separation.I firmly believe that there is no issue with this operation and this report is being filed reference a Mandatory Occurrence Report. Things look VERY different looking out a window to separate aircraft than they do on a RADAR scope having both Tower and RADAR experience. This is simply an alarm based on RADAR environment rules when VFR Tower operations were being applied in a completely safe manner. I don't have a recommendation. Just too please be aware that VFR Towers are using Tower Applied Visual Separation differently than Visual is used in a RADAR environment.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported following all the guidelines for Tower Visual Separation and Degrees Divergence rules that may have been considered as an operational error.
Date: 202006
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on an IFR flight plan at 8;000 [feet] about to fly over ZZZ when we were instructed to climb to 10;000 [feet] . When we were responding but they were unable to receive our coms. As we started to climb we kept trying to reach them. They had airlines trying to reach us and when we tried to squawk our transponder had shut down. We then started to lose navigation and alt. Inop light came on. We tried to trouble shoot the battery as well as turned off all our electrical load. While VMC We spotted ZZZ airport; and decide to circle and land. We believe our complete system malfunction was due to a alternator failure.


Second narrative: We had an aircraft malfunction which caused errors in our radios; transponder; and navigation equipment. We had lost communication but due to the transponder malfunctioning as well we were unable to squawk the appropriate codes. Although we were on an IFR flight plan we were in VMC at the time we had the malfunction and descended to an airport which was in sight. During this we figured the issue was alternator failure along with some other issue down the line in the electrical system. We called flight service on our cell phone in flight to let them know about the issue. Basically we were at 8;000 [feet] and were told by ATC to climb to 10;000 [feet] but we were unable to transmit on the radio. We went to squawk missed com code but the transponder was unresponsive as well. At this point we began to climb to the altitude ATC had requested but then when we saw the airport in sight decided to land and told Flight Service of our intentions over the phone.


Synopsis: C182 pilot reported electrical problems and landed at alternate airport.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Heavy rain at ZZZ; first leg with this aircraft so no knowledge how well the hydrophobic windshield coating or wipers worked. RNAV XXL to minimums. Poor rain shedding; even with wipers on high. Unable to see the runway environment at DA. Go-around and accomplished. CATII Runway XXR. Still heavy rain and runway environment now acquired until just above minimums. Runway difficult to see even between wiper swipes. Landed safely. FAA inspector on Jumpseat was not impressed with the visibility of the Boeing. Also; when ATC questioned the go-around; Controller asked if we were not on the Approach. Apparently other aircraft we're getting in using this procedure. They were not aware Company was not approved. Approach handed each aircraft over to Tower at the FAF; which was an extremely busy time to run checklist; remain established and hear what the previous aircraft was experiencing. Had it been necessary to go around this again I would have declared minimum fuel and possibly emergency fuel to get to a suitable airport without rain. Dispatch offered negligible help while we were in hold and no current radar reports of rain intensity.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported heavy rain on approach to landing and elected to make a go-around due to visibility issues.  Reportedly; the hydrophobic coating on windscreens is ineffective.