elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CRP.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C CRP
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRP
Second aircraft: Mentor/Turbo Mentor (T-34)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; 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
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Training session on Low East RADAR; a BE20 departed NGP IFR runway heading climbing to 1;600 looking to pick up his stereo flight plan. Developmental RADAR identified the aircraft and the stereo flight plan which is the NUBIN3 to PSX 'cleared via the NUBIN3 stereo flight plan.' [Aircraft] also issued an altitude to maintain and remain this frequency. When the pilot read back the clearance he read back all correct and added proceeding to CRP. Developmental then instructed the BE20 to climb and maintain 6;000. A T34 was handed off from North RADAR heading 130 at 3;000 for vectors to and instrument approach. Developmental turned aircraft to a 040 heading with no response. Issued heading again and pilot reads back heading 040. The T34 was issued a climb to 4;000 to protect UAV airspace for the predator departing NGP who was climbing to 3;000 reaching point hooks. Now is when I notice the BE20 turning northwest climbing to 6;000. I issued a 360 heading to the BE20 and Issue traffic to the T34 with a reply of not in sight. I verified assigned altitude on the T34 and re-instructed to maintain 4;000 and told the BE20 to expedite his climb. The [military] pilots not normally turning to the first fix to join the flight plan on the stereo fight plan is what was the unexpected. Although he is legal to do so; the way the Developmental read the clearance. I think the UAV complicated the situation by having a point where he is to start his climb automatically to a very common altitude. Three thousand is used very often and no aircraft should climb automatically. The UAV should be instructed by ATC when he may begin his climb. I think this was just a small contributing factor but nonetheless did add to the loss of separation between the BE20 and the T34.




Synopsis: CRP Controller described a likely loss of separation event listing a UAV operation as a complicating factor.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise; Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
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
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger A would not comply with our mask policy. He was first informed to place his mask on over his nose and mouth and then when I passed by a few minutes later collecting trash; I also noticed he had removed his mask and I reminded him that he needed to place his mask on. He then covered his face with his hoodie and I then handed him one of our masks on board. He then showed me he had one already and I asked him to place it over his mouth and nose; which he didn't when we were in final descent. During deplaning when he walked to the front of the aircraft he still didn't have a mask on; and chose to ignore us again when I told him he needs to have a mask on.We did not serve him a warning because this occurred during initial and final descent.A notice should be placed on his reservation regarding him not complying with the company's face mask policy.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger would not comply with face mask policy.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a training flight for my student working on his instrument rating we were climbing out and I heard a Cessna setting up to come into the traffic pattern when we were taking off. He made a call that he was 6 miles west of the airport. We were tracking out the VOR that is about 7 miles west of the airfield. As we started to make our turn to the west I made radio calls that we were heading out to the VOR on the departure procedure. When we were about 2 miles west of the field I made a call and asked where [the Cessna] was and there was no answer. I called again and no answer. The third time I called he said he was 4 miles west of the field which was about where we were. I asked for some clarification of where he was and as I looked for him he came out of my blind spot and passed of our left wing about 300 feet from us. He didn't even see us. I learned after the flight that he is a student pilot flying solo.




Synopsis: DA40 instructor pilot reported a near midair collision on departure.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was solo. Aircraft was familiar but had not flown it in 7 months. Two flights involved. First flight was uneventful; all good. I removed my headset from the aircraft between the first and second flight and; when I plugged it back into the airplane for the second flight; I plugged it into the RIGHT side jacks instead of the proper LEFT side jacks (I was sitting on the left side.) Unfortunately; I did not notice that I had mistakenly done this. I was operating out of an uncontrolled field and flew to another uncontrolled field. Audio was fine (i.e. I could hear other aircraft at all locations) and I was making standard calls. Unfortunately--and I didn't realize it--my transmissions were not going out. (I do recall thinking the sidetone was different/unusual but I chalked that up to lack of recent experience in this type.) Eventually; I realized I wasn't being heard; I asked for radio checks and heard no response. I used my headphones Bluetooth capability to call my destination tower and advise them of my situation; telling them I could hear them but not transmit. Over their radio freq they advised me to squawk 7600; which I did. I responded to their directions; including a command to remain outside their Class D. Not sure why they didn't try to get me in NORDO but I guess they were busy. I then realized what I had done and fixed the problem. Squawked 1200; contacted tower and advised problem resolved. Rest of flight uneventful.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported disabling radio transmissions by plugging the headset into the wrong jack.
Date: 202103
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was vaccinated for COVID-19. I was unaware of the 48 hour no-fly rule after being vaccinated. I was the authorized instructor on board during two training flights that occurred a day later. No further issues to report.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported being unaware of the 48 hour no fly rule and instructing the day after being vaccinated for COVID-19.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I took a hand off [Aircraft X] from ZZZ ARTCC; who is VFR heading North/Northwest bound at 10;500. When the aircraft checked in; I asked him what his destination was. At first his transmission came in garbled; so I told him I didn't understand anything he said. So with an attitude he responded; ZZZ1 Airport. So I thanked him. As I was trying to control another aircraft on a photo mission; Aircraft X kept on stepping on the transmissions. I told Aircraft X that I wasn't talking to him and to stand by. Once I was done talking with the Aircraft Y; I returned to Aircraft X and asked him if he had any questions. He apologized saying he thought I was speaking to him earlier when he kept stepping on the other aircraft's transmissions. So I asked him how much longer he was going to stay at that altitude. He responded by saying in about three minutes. Some time went by and I told Aircraft X to descend VFR to 8;500. He responded with leaving 10;500 for 8;500. In my scan I did see him descending. Controlled some other aircraft and went back to his Data Tag. His Data Tag wasn't displaying his altitude readout from his Mode-C. So I called Aircraft X to squawk  altitude. I get a click in response. I waited to see if his altitude would show up so I could verify it; but nothing. So I called him again a couple of times and no response. Then the Data Tag went into CST then dropped off my scope. Then about 2 miles ahead of his dropped Data Tag; an aircraft squawked 7700. I tried reaching out to him; but no answer. The Controller working the other departure that had taken my hand off of Aircraft X tried him on guard with no response as well. I asked a nearby aircraft who was closest to Aircraft X; to try and raise him on the frequency; and nothing. Finally the Controller working the other departure finally got the aircraft to IDENT. From there; the other Controller finally got two way radio communications; an asked for details regarding the nature of emergency and offered different airports close by for landing. Apparently the pilot refused and wanted to fly back to his his departure airport approximately 50 miles away passing 9 airports on his way.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a somewhat confused emergency event when a general aviation aircraft failed to respond to ATC requests and finally initiated a 7700 squawk. The reporter indicated the aircraft passed multiple landing opportunities.
Date: 202101
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; MEL; Company Policy
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Here is the cut and paste from my IOR (Internal Occurrence Report)....I don't know if we swapped aircraft due to my statement to the mechanic and Dispatch that I would refuse the aircraft or not ...but last time this happened the CPO said I needed to file an IOR....so here it is. Also...there is no flight info on this flight when my previous flights pops up on the main menu for IOR and [Reporting Program].We returned to the gate due to an ELAC (ELevator Aileron Computer) 2 fault ECAM. Maintenance said they would defer it and send us with one ELAC. I told the mechanic that if they did that I would refuse the aircraft on account of the potential flight control degradation if the remaining ELAC failed. I informed Dispatch of the situation and we ended up with a new aircraft. I don't know if this was a result of my input or not; so I'm submitting this IOR just in case.




Synopsis: Captain reported refusing the aircraft after ELAC2 was placed on MEL.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MMMX.Airport, FO
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MMMX
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Course Deviation due to inaccurate GPS Map Shift. We went around also due to an Unsafe Gear indication.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reports loss of GPS information during approach to Runway 5L at MMMX. Unsafe gear also occurs later in the approach resulting in a go-around.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit/Cabin Communication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After leveling off in cruise I attempted to make a PA as I turned the seatbelt sign off and noticed that the hand microphone on the center pedestal for the PA system did not work. I then used the microphone for the Captain's communication panel to make the announcement. Later in the flight I was informed by flight attendants that the takeoff announcement informing the flight attendants to be seated was not broadcast in the cabin. A Flight Attendant told me all four of the flight attendants as we were starting the takeoff roll and one was actually in the lavatory. Each of them then sat in their jump seats as we continued the takeoff.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported the flight attendants did not recieve the takeoff announcement due to a microphone malfunctioning.
Date: 201408
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Following holding; divert planning; and actually making the turn to the divert airport; we were told they could get us into DCA. (We had plenty of fuel as we started divert early based on estimated holding time). We were cleared direct to RANJR and immediately saw we needed to deviate north of course for weather after RANJR. We were cleared to deviate left as necessary and turned about 15 left. As were trying to brief the arrival; get the ATIS; set up the FMC; and get the flight attendants seated; we remained on heading. We were told to expedite to FL210 and given a frequency change. Then EXPAT Sector asked where we were going and said we were headed toward everybody else.  Another controller came on (Supervisor?) and gave is an immediate 90-degree (approximately) turn. Remainder of flight was uneventful. Not sure. We were task saturated and so was ATC. We worked as a team and did everything we could.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports being cleared direct RANJR after initially holding for landing DCA. A weather deviation is requested and approved (15 left) then a frequency change. The next sector asks where they are going and issues a 90 degree heading change.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Bombardier/Canadair Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fan
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Inspector; Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was tasked with inspecting a pilot discrepancy on the engine nose spinners with missing and delaminating black protection covering. RH engine spinner had a small amount missing about ½ inch in diameter. The LH engine spinner had a very large area missing about a 3 x 12 inch strip at edge by retaining ring. The adhesion of remaining protection material was loose around the torn edges. The loose material was not addressed in the Manufacturer's Continue to Operate Procedures which made it possible for separation and ingestion of the coating into the engine. This is an unsafe condition and what to do with the loose material needs addressed for continued safe operation. There is a service bulletin scheduled to come out on this problem but has not been released. My concern of foreign object damage to the engine by the loose protective coating is what I am trying to resolve. I believe the Manufacturer should require replacement of the protective coating before next flight. A simple loaner pool of spinners for replacement while the original spinner is repaired would be a good solution.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported the maintenance documentation did not address engine spinner protective coating deterioration or separation.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Daylight
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
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
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Company X is a [skydiving] operations company that wants to operate at 13500 [feet]. We have attempted to have a signed LOA to attempt to standardize operations due to the close proximity to the LGA Arrivals. This has not happened as of date. The company has visited the facility and seen the operations and impact. We discussed points for the proposed LOA with the facilities and users involved. However no reply has been given on moving forward. This area is not the best area to conduct this type of operation; however ZNY has attempted to work with the users in a professional manner to resolve the safety issues at hand. The jump [activity] takes place directly over the arrival stream of the LGA arrivals. Have the company relocate to a better suited area. Just 5 miles north or south would increase the safety margin greatly; in addition a signed LOA would give outlines to responsibilities and expectations.

Callback: This skydiving operation has been going on for about 5 years. The reporter said that the FAA has attempted to get an LOA signed; but the owner of the company does not want to sign a binding contract. The reporter stated the area the jumpers are released is Class Echo airspace and the aircraft has every right to be there; but is putting a lot of things in jeopardy by doing so.



Synopsis: ZNY ARTCC Front Line Manager reports of a skydiving operation that is not signatory to a LOA with the FAA. The operation has skydivers dropping through an LGA arrival route.