elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D APA
ATC / advisory: Tower APA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Z was a departure to the southwest. Aircraft X was an IFR departure initially cleared for takeoff with runway heading to protect for Aircraft Z. The incorrect squawk code on the radar tag up was a distraction. I issued a turn to heading 300 about 3 miles south of the airport and switched Aircraft X to Departure Control. I should have issued the traffic; Aircraft Z and Aircraft Y that were to the south/southwest at close to 8;000 ft. Aircraft Y was a fast VFR aircraft that was inbound but not talking to ATC and violated the Class D. Aircraft X had a TCAS/RA for the two VFR aircraft. Aircraft X also did a very slow turn to the 300 heading which further caused him to be over the VFR traffic. [My recommendation is to] give the turn earlier; when I issued the squawk code. Also; I should have issued the traffic prior to switching frequencies. I should have ensured all conflicts were resolved.




Synopsis: APA Tower Controller reported that they did not issue traffic advisory after a delayed heading change to avoid conflicts.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Upon arrival; I went down the jetbridge to meet the aircraft upon arrival from ZZZ1. As the aircraft approached the gate for self park; I turned on the jetbridge power and camera and waited for the stop light indication to turn on; and then proceeded to approach the aircraft. When I was about 2 feet away from reaching the aircraft I felt a sudden stop and at that moment the ramp agent bellow yelled out.....Stop ...Stop and I did. I stopped movement and looked around and opened the door to take a look outside. At that moment I saw the jetbridge slide in contact with a van that was parked inside a red no park zone. I called OPS from inside the cab to inform of situation and then advised Captain through the window. I went down the stairs to look closely and noticed it was an [company] van that was left with running engine no one around. As I was taking pictures OPS Supervisor came and did the same. OPS and [supervisor] tried to contact someone from [company] for couple of minutes; and even called a tow truck since they could not reach [company]. A few minutes later an [company] supervisor finally showed up and moved the van forward away from the zone. At that time I received an OK from [supervisor] to proceed and meet aircraft; which I did. Everything on jetbridge and slide seemed to be fine and operational. However we also noted two other [company] vehicles parked unattended within the perimeter (inside the same red no park zone).




Synopsis: Gate Agent reported jetbridge collision with an illegally parked van as the jetbridge approached the aircraft door.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft and crew was cleared for the COLTR 3 RNAV arrival ABQ; Visual Runway 26. We were then cleared down to an altitude of 9;200 feet and to call when the airport was in sight. Flight crew had the field in sight many miles out; approx 20 or so. We advised field in sight and confirmed runway 30 was in visual. We then continued but used the guidance for the arrival for altitude awareness meaning YYLEE to TACOH on the arrival. We then made a base turn to final and while approaching the runway 26 for a 90 degree intercept left heard the aircraft state 'Caution Terrain' at this time descent was stopped while making a bank toward the west. Terrain warning disappeared. Therefore we continued the approach and landed without further ado.After thinking about over night.  We as a crew discussed whether or not there should be concern and found it was prudent to ask ABQ tower for a ground track review of our flight path.It was later confirmed that the terrain had risen to within 650 Feet of our flight path.Visual Approaches to Runway 26 should be limited to Runway 26 day visual only  .




Synopsis: MD-83 pilot reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning after descending to approximately 650 feet AGL on a night visual approach to ABQ RWY 26.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LWT.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During an IFR Descent I was unable to maintain assigned MEA due to airframe icing.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Cessna 172 was unable to maintain altitude due to icing conditions.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was filed BNDTO FOUR departure and ATC clearance was PITZZ THREE departure.  Departure was changed in MCDU and briefed in MINI BRIEF during taxi; and submitted to ramp control upon initial call up.  During taxi out; was given runway change and submitted into MCDU and DISCON cleared.  Both PF and PM understood we were cleared and we're going to be flying the PITZZ three; but with short taxi; and no preceding aircraft; a verification of route after runway change was not completed.  Upon initial contact with departure control; the controller noted our heading and asked what departure we were given.  We replied the PITZZ three; which was what both of us had out in our Jeppesen [charts].  The aircraft was flying the BNDTO FOUR and the fixes in the MCDU were for the BNDTO FOUR.  We complied with a heading change; and I; as PM; selected the initial fix in PITZZ and reported to ATC that we have PITZZ on our screen; and reported the approximate heading.  We were told to fly direct the subsequent fix MNNKE; which I entered into direct and the aircraft navigated to MNNKE.  The remaining two fixes were common between the two departures and we continued without further conversation or incident. Verify departure fixes after all changes to runways and departure procedures.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reports entering the BNDTO4 in the MCDU departing IAH; then receiving a revised PDC for the PITZZ3; which is entered. During taxi a runway change is issued and entered but the route is not checked prior to takeoff. Once airborne ATC questions the crew about their departure and they find they are flying the BNDTO4.
Date: 201403
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Routine Inspection; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Boeing Direct ACARS messages are being mistaken by the crews as messages sent from the dispatchers. Three times today alone the crews have replied to me after these messages were received and thought Dispatch was the sender. This is creating confusion because the crews believe Dispatch has verified the route; winds; time; fuel; weather on this suggested re-route from Boeing when; in fact; I was unable to check any of these suggested re-routes for fuel; WX; etc due to time constraints. The event occurred because Boeing Direct was instituted without much guidance or testing. Joint Operation Control between Dispatch and the PIC is being blurred by having an automated computer send messages to our flights in regards to suggested re-routes.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reports that Boeing Direct messages to flight crews are causing confusion because the crews believe they are coming from Dispatch.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the takeoff roll; at 60 KTS; the right engine began to surge and the aircraft began to pull hard towards the right with severe vibrations emitting from nose gear. As a result; a rejected takeoff was immediately accomplished. Once stopped on the runway; the purser notified the flight deck that; just prior to the rejected takeoff; FAs (Flight Attendants) and passengers witnessed flames emitting from the exhaust section of the right engine. Tower was notified; Fire Rescue requested; passengers told to remain seated; and all required checklists completed. The right engine was manually shutdown. Fire Rescue visually inspected the right engine and notified flight deck of no visible damage or fire. A return to the gate was requested along with a Fire Rescue escort. Just prior to gate arrival; Fire Rescue gave all clear and safe to continue. Aircraft stopped prior to turning into the gate and remaining engine was shutdown and the aircraft was towed into the gate. At the gate; a visual inspection of the right engine showed pieces of melted metal in the exhaust section of the engine. Dispatch and [Chief Pilot] were notified and maintenance write-up accomplished. Additionally; Tower was notified of the possibility of engine debris on the runway.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported rejecting takeoff after right engine surging and vibrations.
Date: 201509
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Pax
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After diverting following decompression; back lavatory oxygen masks had not deployed because a Tamper Evidence Seal was also on the compartment. Should not have been there.




Synopsis: Lavatory oxygen masks in B737 did not deploy following a decompression due to the incorrect use of a Tamper Evidence Seal.
Date: 201712
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During preflight; I noted a number of anomalies with the aircraft configuration as a result of MELs on the aircraft as well as a number of other items that were not related to the MELs. I noted that the aircraft was to be flown in PAYLOAD mode and ensured the switch was in the correct position. I also noted there was fuel in the center tank and intended to address this with the Captain. I continued to move through the MEL procedure items to ensure we were in compliance. Additionally; I noticed that fueling was still in progress. When the Captain returned to the flight deck we discussed the MEL items and associated checklists. We also discussed the plan for deicing and briefed our taxi and takeoff plan. At this point we noted the fueling door had been left open and the fueler was gone. We notified the mechanic and had that situation resolved. While we were dealing with this; the weight and balance arrived and we completed the paperwork and setting up the FMC. We then closed the doors and started coordination for pushback; de-ice configuration; and ensuring we met all of the operational procedures for the aforementioned MELs. After de-icing; all other procedures were conducted normally. We departed and; passing through 18;000ft; our review of the fuel page confirmed we had departed with greater than 400lbs in the center tank while still in payload mode. Contributing factors were the multiple MELs that required a variety of procedures; the distraction of the fueling door; and my failure to remember to bring to the Captain's attention the fuel I had noted when pre-departure preparations increased our workload. To prevent a reoccurrence; I plan on writing down any items that I plan to address with the Captain while he is off of the flight deck.




Synopsis: Airbus A300 pilot reported departing with greater than 400 lbs in the center tank while still in payload mode.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Temperature Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out thru 14;000 ft. noticed engine #2 oil pressure in amber band. Oil pressure and quantity was dropping rapidly. Ran the 'Engine Low Oil Pressure' checklist followed by 'Engine Failure or Shutdown' checklist. No overweight landing. [Requested priority handling]. Normal approach and landing. Equipment met the aircraft after taxiing clear of runway. After getting the all clear from them we taxied to the gate and got tugged in. Called maintenance and dispatch. Spoke with Chief Pilot and maintenance. Made two maintenance entries. All went great.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an oil pressure problem resulting in a return to departure airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MWCR.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: This event happened some time ago. After discussing with other pilots and training staff I decided it warrants a report. Descending into MWCR area. Flying directly to MOBIX Intersection from the north-northwest. We were following an Aircraft Y who was nearing MOBIX also from the north-northwest and was cleared for approach in front of us. Upon Aircraft Y reporting MOBIX; ATC determined that there was sufficient distance in trail and cleared us for the RNAV 08 approach via MOBIX. TCAS observation led us to believe that Aircraft Y did not turn inbound at MOBIX but had turned outbound to do a course reversal procedure at MOBIX. After discussion with ATC it was confirmed that Aircraft Y had made a course reversal (not what ATC was expecting). Our clearance was then modified to avoid conflict with Aircraft Y. After my partner and I discussed what was the correct procedure for entry at ZZZZZ. We are familiar with the 30 degree ICAO direct approach entry authorization for conventional approaches. We did not know if or how this applied to RNAV procedures. After digging in the Jeppesen manuals on way home we discovered that RNAV approaches permit up to a 110 degree turn to join the approach at an IAF or IF. This was news to us. Since that time I have met no one else who knew of this. When I show the MOBIX example to other pilots; check airmen and instructors I have yet to find anyone that really knows. The Aircraft Y crew that day thought they had to do a course reversal. Had we not noticed their actions; a conflict might have occurred. Sure seems to be something we are missing in training. Please see my attachments and feel free to call to discuss more if desired.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported unfamiliarity with RNAV entry procedures into MWCR caused an airborne conflict.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Rectifier
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Diverted due to an intermittent Battery Discharging Level 1 Alert.  Declared an emergency and proceeded to land as quickly as possible.  Landed and taxied to the ramp.  Emergency personnel terminated the emergency when we were in the chocks and after conferring with us.




Synopsis: An MD-11 had an intermittent Battery Discharging Level 1 Alert during cruise flight.  The crew diverted to the nearest suitable airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About 30 minutes into flight while doing beverage service I noticed a passenger wearing a personal air purifier on a lanyard around her neck. I asked her what it was and she said it was for medical purposes. She said she had called us to check if she could use it on the plane. She was told by the agent on the phone that she could. Her doctor advised her to wear it as she is a cancer patient. The product is about the size of a cigarette lighter and called 'Air Tamer.' She said her doctor asked her to use it during the flight as it was easier to use than portable oxygen. I checked with the Captain and he said he never heard about such a device. The First Officer checked his manual and could not find this item. According to our Flight Attendant In-Flight Manual; if it's not on the approved electronic list then it's not an approved device.I recalled seeing it hanging on a lanyard around her neck as she boarded the plane but did not realized that it was the personal air purifier and so did not check with Captain before we took off. We need a guideline and protocol to handle such incidents and agents need to know what to look out for. Also not sure if it's an approved medical device or an electronic device.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant noted a passenger wearing a portable air purifier and was unable to determine if its use in flight was appropriate.