elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the R46 position combined at R47; with a CPC D-Side. The traffic volume at my sector was low; and there was a significant (more than 50% coverage) of weather in the airspace. I am one of the Feeder Sectors for the High Altitude Sectors (sitting behind me). The High Altitude Sector was extremely busy; with an extensive amount of weather and airplanes.The CIC was sitting next to him watching him work traffic. I overheard CPC saying; 'We need to slow this down; this is dangerous; and there's too much weather. We need this ground stopped.' Since I was working his Feeder Sector; I called Palm Beach and Miami and asked for a ground stop. Miami and Palm Beach complied. I turned around and told CIC that I ground stopped everything. He was busy engaged at R65; helping. A few minutes later; traffic management unit called CIC and asked why everything had been ground stopped. When he responded; they walked over and traffic management unit came in the area to argue why we can't ground stop traffic for safety; and how it wasn't dangerous in the first place.While CPC was still struggling to come out of the overloaded situation at R65/64/68 sector; traffic management unit called Miami and Palm Beach and resumed departures; without coordinating this with me at the sector; or with CPC.A few hours later; I asked FLM what I can do; and he said that we should do a report; but that he wouldn't initiate it. So [this report] is my only recourse. I believe that traffic management unit should not be able to coordinate restrictions that are less restrictive then what the sector is asking; without the sector's permission. In this case; I asked for a ground stop because I felt the situation was unsafe; by removing the ground stop without coordinating with me; they could have put Sector 65 in an even more unsafe situation.




Synopsis: Miami Center Controller reported a dangerous situation due to weather and traffic volume.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cargo Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: An AFT CARGO DOOR EICAS warning illuminated at approximately 95 KTS. We aborted the takeoff and returned to the gate and got the problem fixed.


Second narrative: Cleared the runway; made a PA; contacted Ground; and had the jumpseater to talk to the company while Captain and First Officer ran Rejected Takeoff checklist. Brake temperature never got above 1.9.Maintenance deferred a sensor.A Chief Pilot and his/her assistant met us and asked what the stress level on the flight crew had been and if we could handle a similar emergency should it happen on the next takeoff? We responded there was no stress and that we could deal with another. We departed less than two hours later.


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew rejected there takeoff at 90-95 KTS when an EICAS CARGO DOOR warning illuminated.
Date: 202110
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
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon Arrival to ZZZ International Airport I called the B Flight Attendant and stated over the PA 'prepare doors for Arrival and Cross Check'. As soon as I went to the door I look through the peep hole and saw the gate agents eyes. I reach for the flap to open it up to pull up the two red levers and as soon as I reached for the handles the main handle started to lift up and I jerked back. I never gave the gate agent a thumbs up to say that the doors were disarmed and I never went to disarm the R1 door either. I watched the gate agent continue to pull the door and I looked at him and the floor and saw the bag deploy. I immediately called the FO and the Captain of what had transpired. Only the B flight attendant try to console me and informed me to take pictures and fill out an incident report immediately.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that while preparing the doors for arrival; the gate agent opened the door before it was disarmed causing the slide to deploy.
Date: 201710
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Crosswind; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were doing a soft field takeoff. My student was on the controls and took off with a very high pitch up attitude to get the nose off the ground. He didn't think the airplane had lifted from the ground and continued to pull back on the yoke; causing for the plane to be very unstable on takeoff and in turn not getting into ground effect and positive energy. I took control and brought the nose down; but we had already shifted right of the runway due to a high crosswind and the wings were rocking side to side. I think it was also due to us having a passenger onboard and my student not being aware of the CG shift and more weight that was added by us having full tanks. We did not realize that we had hit the right wing tip until post flight. We also noticed the tail skid plate had been dragged from the result of the high pitch attitude. We flew the plane [multiple legs] not knowing there was any damage done to the plane.Corrective actions to this situation would be to keep the nose just slightly above the ground and still being able to see the runway. Keeping an eye on airspeed on takeoff; especially on soft field takeoffs because of that low airspeed on liftoff. And the inaction to turn back and have maintenance check out the plane before continuing.




Synopsis: PA-28 instructor pilot reported continuing to fly the aircraft following a practice soft field takeoff that resulted in some damage related to ground contact.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were crusing at FL 350 about 15 minutes prior to ZZZZZ slightly north of airway after being cleared direct to ZZZZZ from a position prior to ZZZZZ1; talking to Center and the controller advised us of traffic 1:30 and 4 miles and 500 ft. above us. About 10 seconds later the First Officer advised me that he had the traffic in sight. The approaching aircraft was behind the center fuselage window frame piece; so I didn't see the aircraft for a few more seconds. I then saw a twin engine military fighter out the First Officer's window in a steep left bank turn passing very close to our 1:30 position; and slightly above our altitude. TCAS indicated traffic 400 ft. above our position. A few seconds later we received a TCAS RA 'Descend' command; but the RA voice and vertical speed guidance ended before the First Officer could turn off the autopilot. We know that RA's should always be honored; but in this case the advisory ended within a few seconds of when it started. That aircraft was already flying away from us off our right side when the RA sounded. It was impossible to estimate his speed; but in this case the TCAS advisory sounded well after a collision would have occurred had we been a collision course. The First Officer indicated the aircraft looked like an F-18. We queried the controller who stated that the aircraft passed within a mile horizontally and 500 ft. vertically; and he thought it was American (I don't know how he would know its nationality); and that these types of incidents have been occurring for over a month. My guess is that the aircraft was significantly closer than a mile since I could see the seams in the metal panels on the bottom of the aircraft; and it looked as large in the windscreen as B747's we follow on oceanic crossings 1;000 ft. above when they are almost directly above us.Military aircraft flying close to very heavily traveled civilian airways and airspace not talking to controllers. I have no idea if the military aircraft had his transponder on for the entire encounter.More coordination between military aircraft and civilian controllers. Improved TCAS software (if military aircraft had transponder on during entire flight).




Synopsis: MD-11 Captain reported an NMAC event with a military aircraft flying close to heavily traveled oceanic routes.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: 'Thrust lever position disagree' fault; caused thrust to go to idle when slats are [extended]; during ILS intercept; thus degrading aircraft to a single engine operation. Landed with Engine Number 2 at idle; in accordance with all applicable procedures. Landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported effective loss of Number 2 engine when the thrust lever was driven to idle by a 'Thrust Lever Position Disagree' fault during the approach.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Declared Emergency; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival at the aircraft; we noticed snow and ice on the plane. We coordinated for deicing in the gate. After all preflight procedures were accomplished; we started the Ground De/Anti-Ice checklist and indicated we were ready for de-ice. The ground crew cleared the aircraft of snow and ice. Maintenance called on the intercom to tell us de-ice was complete and to give us the information for the [holdover times]. The First Officer (FO) started his clock upon this notification. After 3 minutes; we continued the checklist. Soon after the APU Bleed was turned on; we heard the fire bell and received an ECAM warning of 'Cargo Comp Smoke'. We looked up to see it was the aft section. Within seconds we received multiple warnings from the other main deck  sections until all 3 were alarming. The smoke seemed to move forward. I asked the FO to open the door and take a quick look. We both saw the 9g net obscured by white smoke. He shut the door. I called ground control to declare the emergency and requested fire equipment; and then called for the Evacuation checklist. We accomplished the Evacuation checklist but did not discharge any agent since the smoke did not smell like smoke. The FO called out his window for the stairs; and we walked off the aircraft.




Synopsis: An air crew; after having been de-iced at the gate proceeded with their checklist and turned on the APU Bleed. A fire bell sounded followed by an ECAM warning of 'Cargo Comp Smoke'.  They declared an emergency and evacuated the airplane. The reporter concluded that 'De-icing fluid or water was in the ducting causing vapor which the aircraft sensed as smoke.'
Date: 201910
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Tonight we were assigned to move Aircraft X; a B757; from Gate XX to the hangar. Gate XX is a borrowed gate from [company] at Terminal X. When we arrived we pulled the super tug to the front of the aircraft and when I got out to do my walk around; I noticed that there was no parking for the B757 and wasn't even on a stop mark. These gates are not outfitted for the B757 and gate managers assigned a live flight with crew and passengers on board to park at that gate for I'm not sure what reason. Ramp Supervisor came to gate and I let him know my concerns and he also took picture.My concern is that putting operation need in front of everyone (flight crew; passengers; ramp etc.) safety at risk by trying to get these aircraft on gates not fitted for aircraft type to make sure we don't get backed up on the operation. By parking this aircraft on this gate that is not fitted for the B757; the tail may have been sticking out and another aircraft may have come down the alley for a different gate and hit the tail of the aircraft; while passengers are deplaning; or ramp offloading the aircraft casing the aircraft to move possibly off the jet bride and passengers fall or ground crew getting hit and injured from moving aircraft or working around aircraft.




Synopsis: Ramp personnel reported a B757 being parked at a gate that was not designed for that aircraft type.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The tug driver appeared to be inexperienced. Had difficulty positioning the aircraft on the parallel taxiway and left us on about a 30 degree angle. The COMM with the tug driver was very weak. When the tug disconnected we were not on the taxiway.


Second narrative: The ground crew that pushed our aircraft back was in training. Halfway through the pushback the tug driver stopped and tried to realign the tug to complete the pushback. Unfortunately he couldn't do it and his trainer had to take over. But during the crew swap to drive the tug; the aircraft was left at an angle and the tail section may have encroached the runway. An additive condition to the event was the difficulty communicating with the tug driver. We could barely hear him. Another condition was the layout of the airport in ZZZ. The ramp is small; congested and has an active runway right behind it making a pushback difficult and challenging for the tug driver.Testing of wireless headsets prior to push to establish clear communication between flight crew and ground crew. Not training a new crew on pushback procedures while the aircraft is involved in a quick turnaround due to delayed arrival. Training new crew on pushback in ZZZ should take place while the aircraft is parked overnight or early morning; with ATC approval and with [the nearby runway] closed or not utilized. Allow the driver to become proficient without the time pressure of line operations and a busy airport environment.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported pushback tug driver inexperience resulted in communications breakdown and runway incursion.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am the purchaser of a light aircraft. I have 750 hours of PIC time; with 650 of those hours in taildraggers. 148 hrs in a previous [similar type aircraft].I was performing a familiarization flight with the seller and was conducting my second landing in type at [an airport]; from the aircraft's previous home base. Landing was a 3 point landing. I flared too high; due to most of my time being in a much larger taildragger so I botched the landing resulting in a ground loop and fouling the runway. A bizjet performed a go around.No aircraft damage or passenger injury resulted. My aircraft was restarted after airport personnel cleared me for restart and taxi to parking.




Synopsis: Tail dragger pilot reported ground looping an aircraft during a checkout of a different airplane than he is used to. The aircraft was restarted and continued normally.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Icing; Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence; 10
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E PWM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on vectors to final for the ILS 13 to HIO approach cleared for a decent to 2;400 Ft. we started down and at about 2;900 Ft. we realized that th DME arc only three miles to our north; was only alowing 3;700 Ft. At that time I initiated a climb and simultaneously the controller issued a low altitude alert and told us to climb and maintain 3;400 Ft.




Synopsis: LR60 First Officer reports being cleared to 2;400 feet by Approach Control but realizes during the descent by looking at the terrain on the ILS approach chart that the Controller must have said 3;400 feet. A low altitude alert is issued by ATC as the reporter is starting to climb.