elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for the ILS 4R approach into EWR. I was utilizing the autopilot for the approach and at 700 feet AGL the PM called; 'approach lights' in sight. I continued to scan my PFD and noticed that the localizer started to move to the left. The autopilot quickly turned left to correct for this condition; but when I looked up; the runway lights and runway were slightly to my right. I immediately disengaged the autopilot to line up with the runway and continue a stabilized approach to landing. This seemed to be an anomaly with the reception of the localizer. The autopilot reacted as if something had gotten in between the aircraft and localizer because it is very strange that the localizer would indicate that we were right of course when the aircraft was left of course. It is important that pilots continue to hold the controls during approaches with an autopilot because of the quick reaction necessary to correct for potential hazards.


Second narrative: [Report contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: At 700 FT on an ILS final for EWR 4R; a DHC-8-400 localizer deviated left causing the autopilot to quickly follow but the First Officer disconnected the autopilot; returned to course and continued to a safe landing.
Date: 202007
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger was not wearing face mask at all. I gave him one because he told me he did not have one; which was false because everyone had one as they boarded the aircraft.After passenger told me he did not have one; I went to galley to bring him a new one. He put it on; but as I left he put it on his chin. I told him three times and I let him be aware that this was my third time telling him. Every time I walked by he put it down and as I passed he put it over his face. But once I left I seen him pull it back down. After the third time I notified the flight deck.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger did not comply with wearing a face mask.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Avionics
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft X was assigned to the hangar midnight crew for the 'A' check.  The first contact that technicians had with the aircraft occurred at approximately XA00 local time.  Avionics technicians; including myself; began the night with completing operational checks within the aircraft in preparation for the rest of the crew to perform their assigned tasks. Later technicians began to migrate in and out of the flight deck; cabin; galleys; lavs; etc.; to their assigned tasks.  All technicians were in compliance with the mask policy.Approximately 4 hours later; the Lead Technician and Supervisor alerted everyone on board that the aircraft had not gone through its disinfecting process which usually occurs at the gate upon arrival.  The aircraft was cleared and the Lead performed the disinfecting procedures.Concerns were raised from this event.  The potential of an infected passenger being on board and the potential of technicians being exposed to COVID.The protocol for traveling to ZZZ is to have a COVID test within an XX hour period of departure time.  However; once you are tested there are no guarantees that the individual will quarantine or shelter in place prior to boarding the aircraft for departure. The cleaners finally arrived for the disinfecting process at midnight. I asked the supervisor what the protocol is for an event such as this and he was unaware of one in place.This aircraft originated from ZZZ1.




Synopsis: Technician reported the maintenance crew was advised the aircraft had not been disinfected after the inspection and repairs were already in progress.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise; Parked
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aerofoil Ice System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Outside air temperature 90 [degrees] F+. While on a training flight in TKS fluid equipped Caravan. TKS anti-ice system was turned on for 3-5 minutes for a demo. As soon as TKS turned on both pilots noted a chemical odor in cockpit; and pilot flying immediately began coughing (severe) uncontrollably and complained of difficulty breathing. Non pilot flying had immediate reaction to TKS also; difficulty breathing; throat irritation; nausea; and eventually vomited after flight. Both pilots were 'sticky' after flight. Every pilot has noticed TKS fluid dripping into the cabin vent intake at the top of the strut; immediately below the TKS panel; and TKS fluid (HAZMAT) is contaminating the cockpit and crew. Extreme heat appears to make vaporization worse. When you open parked aircraft door; you are overwhelmed with chemical odor from TKS fluid (a hazmat). TKS fluid MSDS warns about exposure to fluid and vapor. One of the warnings of breathing TKS fluid vapor is a narcotic effect. Crews are noticing health effects from the TKS that are not dissipating after repeated exposure. This is a very dangerous system and crews are being exposed to hazmat contamination; health; and safety issues every time this aircraft is flown.




Synopsis: A C208B instructor reported the TKS fluid vaporization increases in high OAT conditions and the effects are not dissipating after repeated exposure. The reporter became nauseous and vomited after flight.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Workload; Confusion
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in command of an ERJ 135 as the Pilot flying. Landing Runway XX into ZZZ. After touchdown and rollout; my aircraft passed through approximately 60 knots. I observed a yellow tail-wheel single engine airplane approach us from the opposite direction; coming right at my aircraft. I then observed the aircraft abort their landing and go around; nearly missing us by an unknown altitude. When I observed this aircraft; I immediately exited my aircraft onto the NOTAM'd closed Runway XY/XZ to avoid this aircraft from hitting us.The aircraft who nearly hit us was a tail-wheel airplane.I have several witnesses who say they saw the event happen right in front of them. 2 charter pilots; the ZZZ fire marshal; and several Company 1 employees.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a Critical Ground Conflict with an opposite direction landing aircraft at this non-towered airport. The Captain took evasive action to avoid a collision by turning onto a nearby closed runway.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CCR.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D CCR
ATC / advisory: Tower CCR
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: CCR is a level 5 VFR tower.  Controlling RADAR approach facility is SUU RAPCON.  RADAR information is an ARTCC site 30 miles west processed through ARTS IIIE RDP/FDP at Northern California TRACON.  CCR's RADAR processing does not interface with SUU's RADAR equipment. 95% of the time we cannot see their data blocks and they can't see ours.  When inbounds have been initially tagged up by Center or NCT Approach; we do receive FDIO strips on the inbound practice approaches.  Method of transfer of control of IFR/VFR approaches (all from the North) is via coordination with squawk code. The following is a previously reported known issue.Aircraft X was coordinated inbound from SUU on a GPS19R VFR practice approach.  CCR had an FDIO printed strip that matched the coordinated inbound call sign and squawk.  I was watching for the inbound target to join my final approach course; which would normally be displaying only a * (splat); altitude; and speed.  I suddenly realized there was a data block descending and heading my way.  It displayed Aircraft Y; destination; PAO (Palo Alto). I checked the squawk corresponding to the data block.  It was [XXXX]; the same as the inbound coordinated and printed out on Aircraft X.  I called SUU RADAR and they advised the data block showing on their RADAR was Aircraft X on the same target that mine displayed as Aircraft Y.It has been determined that this occurs when Northern California TRACON works an aircraft earlier in the day.  They terminate RADAR services on the aircraft; but fail to terminate control on the data block.  After that flight drops off RADAR; instead of dropping out of NCT's FDP; it remains there floating around; even though it has dropped out of the ARTCC ERAM FDP.  ERAM believes it available and assigns it to another flight; but on any screen associated with NCT's FDP (such as ours); it shows up with the old inactive call sign.This fortunately only happens about once every 3 or 4 weeks; but it can be very distracting and discomforting when it does; and in busy traffic; could become a safety issue.  The targets that drop off NCT's RADAR should be programmed to drop out of the system after a period of time.




Synopsis: CCR FLM describes a problem with the Radar system that shows duplicate beacon codes at times.  Aircraft that are not removed from the system correctly tag up later in the day on another aircraft.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BTV.Airport, VT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BTV
ATC / advisory: Tower BTV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on a left base to a visual for runway 33 in day VMC. The autopilot was off due to the fact that the moderate turbulence had kicked the autopilot off.  We had been encountering moderate turbulence from 10;000 feet to the runway.   We had a 48 knot tailwind on the left base which caused my First Officer to deviate right off course on final when he attempted to make a left turn to intercept a visual final to runway 33. The entire time of the approach we saw only green terrain on the main fight display (MFD) and I only saw two white and two red on the PAPI.  I also was monitoring the glide slope as reference due to the fact we were on a daytime visual.  When my First Officer (pilot flying) attempted the left turn to a straight-in visual; he overshot final due to the 48 knot tailwind.  I told him to turn back left to get back onto final.  He said 'correcting' and was correcting.  While turning back left we received a 'whoop; whoop pull up terrain.'  The First Officer pulled up and was completely clear of terrain.  At the same time I monitored his vertical speed and observed no terrain conflict.  He corrected to a straight-in final to runway 33 and the GPWS stopped.  We landed without incident. I am submitting this ASAP because neither my First Officer nor I saw any terrain conflict although we received a GPWS.  We should have taken a sooner turn due to the 48 knot tailwind on the left base.   We saw no terrain conflict on the MFD nor visually.




Synopsis: Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on approach to BTV when the aircraft deviated from the visual Runway 33 final approach course.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PIT.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Upon landing at Pittsburgh International Airport Runway 10C/28C was closed with no lighted X's and there were planes parked all over it. I saw a bulletin come out about overflow aircraft parking. It appears Pittsburgh has a lot of ramp space closed and vacant for a construction project they are not doing. I feel like they could use this space rather than creating a situation for an accident on the airfield.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported Runway 10C/28C is closed at PIT; but not marked with lighted X symbols.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SQL.Tower, CA
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D SQL
ATC / advisory: Tower SQL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in Aircraft X following Aircraft Y along with Aircraft Z. All three aircraft were doing pattern work for at least 30 minutes prior to the incident. For the most part ATC was requiring full stop taxi backs.My plane; Aircraft X; was cleared to land number 2 after Aircraft Y; which was cleared to land number 1.I watched Aircraft Y turn a 1 mile base over the channel coming from the cement plant; which is the typical position for base to final for traffic at San Carlos; soon after receiving sequence and clearance to land. As Aircraft Y approached its turn to final; I saw Aircraft Z on an extended final on a direct collision course with Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y confirmed sequence #2 as opposed to #1 cleared to land and took evasive action.Aircraft Y performed evasive action; 45-60 degree bank turn climbing; and narrowly missed Aircraft Z. Aircraft Z did not change course or direction. ATC then amended the clearance for Aircraft Y to Number 2 for landing and amended my clearance for number 3 for landing. Both planes Aircraft Y and Z landed safely and parked. Somehow; ATC mixed up the sequence. I suspect most likely both Aircraft Y and Z were cleared to land and it was only that the pilot on Aircraft Y looked up the approach path and saw Aircraft Z; and took evasive action that a midair collision was averted.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported a near midair collision in the airport traffic pattern.
Date: 202101
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Unknown
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Problem with slide bustle and slide; no action or inspection by maintenance.  Possible contact with COVID-19 passenger in which no actions were taken by company to protect passenger and crew from possible virus contact.Suggestion - New overhaul of employee management actions.Ill passenger sat on the slide bustle in front galley for more than 5 minutes. I asked if a mechanic could look at the slide and bustle to make sure that they were intact but was ignored.  It was more important to get the flight out.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported possible exposure to COVID-19 and cited no action on the part of the company.  Flight Attendant also stated a reported slide bustle maintenance issue was also ignored.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was getting my annual certification and was very nervous. It was IFR; there were icing; bases; tops reports to get; PIREP; and disseminate.  I cleared Aircraft X SE bound level at FL230. The datablock hadn't auto-flashed approximately 10 miles from the boundary so I looked to see if Sector 1 and 2 were split or combined; there were combined; so I flashed at 02. With our new airspace; Sector 2 owns up to FL210. When I called Sector 02 with the handoff 1 mile from the boundary the controller said something indicating that this was the wrong sector. I called the appropriate Sector 14 and made the handoff; was it over the boundary?  I'm not sure. People have been talking about this a lot lately; but the team atmosphere seems to be lacking.  If another controller in any facility; especially my own area; were flashing at the wrong sector; I would say something. The 'TEAM' needs some work around here and probably throughout the FAA. Maybe some team building would help.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller acknowledged an airspace infraction when confused regarding sector consolidation; the reporter expressing concern regarding a lack of 'team atmosphere and support' evidenced in this and other events.