elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I wore the Alternate uniform for the first time. Two hours into the flight I was working in the aft Galley. I was the B galley flight attendant. My coworker was in the galley with me at that time. I felt it was warm in the galley from the beginning and as I got busier it got more stuffy. We just got done collecting and was getting ready to do the breaks when I started feeling real hot and couldn't breathe. I felt dizzy and I told my co-worker that I'm about to pass out. He asked me to lay down on the last row. Shortly the F flight attendant asked me if I need oxygen; I nodded and she hooked me up with the hi-flow outlet. I used the oxygen for almost 2 hours. After that I felt better. I called the [pilot] and he instructed me to get lots of rest. He said it sounded like vertigo. I've never had vertigo ever. I heard other Fa's having vertigo in reaction to the new uniform. On the return flight; I wore the uniform again and within 15 minutes I felt hot and dizzy again. This happened at the hotel lobby. Captain advised me to do whatever it takes to remain healthy. I took the uniform off and worked in jeans in my return flight; I was fine the entire flight. At this point I was concerned about my health and safety around the uniform.




Synopsis: A flight attendant reported that the company issued uniform made her ill.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SQL.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D SQL
ATC / advisory: Tower SQL
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The [SQL] ATIS recording is almost always very hard to understand. Many times it cuts in and out when it is recorded. This means that pilots may not be able to clearly hear critical information such as the altimeter setting or the wind. This has been reported to the tower controllers but the situation hasn't been improved. Pilots often times have to report they don't have the WX and ask the Controller to read it. This defeats the purpose of having an ATIS. The recording sounds like the person is not always speaking into the microphone.




Synopsis: GA Pilot reported SQL ATIS as consistently unreadable and unreliable.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; 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 Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Denver TRACON has opted to implement new procedures to fix overshoots on the 16 Runway finals. At any given time one of the 16 finals is called the 'high' runway and is told to conduct ILS approaches while the other is the 'low' runway and is told to conduct visual approaches. However here at Denver we also have RNAV ZULU Approaches which is an instrument approach that arcs to the runway from the downwind. It was decided that I was going to go from being the 'low' runway to being the 'high' runway. Unfortunately this was never coordinated with me I had to figure it out myself based on how I was being fed. As I began to transition the volume picked up and I was focused on meeting the requirements put forth by management that super-exceed the 7110.65 for separation. As I began to run the final and get all of the aircraft onto the ILS I noticed an RNAV ZULU approach within 3 miles of the aircraft I had cleared for the ILS. I issued the visual approach clearance to the aircraft but at that point it was already a loss of separation. There are 3 clear options to resolve this from happening again or to another controller. The first is to remove the procedures and return to working traffic as we had previously. The FAA has taken the responsibility of the pilots and the airlines and taken it upon themselves to fix a problem with procedures that are ineffective and damaging to the NAS. The second is to explain to the Tower and the airlines that for safety we will now be landing on Runway 17L and 17R which has more space between finals. Finally the last is to once again refine the procedures; create new STARS that will allow for the smooth operation of these procedures; and properly train the workforce rather than rushing out the procedure so local management can collect data.




Synopsis: D01 Approach Controller reported the procedures instituted for parallel approaches to Runways 16L and 16R do not work well.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Starting our descent out of FL400 to FL340 the right oil pressure light flickered on then off; noticed the oil pressure had dropped to 13-14 psi. Immediately the right oil pressure EICAS message came on and we noticed the right oil quantity gauge was near 0. I ask [the First Officer] to get the QRH out and start the appropriate QRH procedure for the engine low oil pressure EICAS message. This led us to the Engine Failure or Shutdown checklist right away. I continued to fly the aircraft while we ran the QRH procedure. Notified ATC and then declared an emergency. We secure the right engine and after conferring with our Dispatcher via ACARS and discussing the weather in [nearby airports] we decided to choose [a nearby airport] as our airport of choice. ATC made arrangements and we landed with emergency equipment standing by. We proceeded as planned for a single-engine ILS with a landing G.W. of 200;000 lbs and S.E. taxied to the Maintenance hangar where we [were] met by Maintenance personnel and many questions. Logbook entry was made.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported shut down of right engine in flight because of low oil pressure.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was filming a house fire with my drone at 150 feet AGL. My drone operating interface via my iPad never gave any warnings of being in Class D airspace. I have been informed that I was slightly within the Class D airspace. I was well outside the approach path and certainly well below the traffic pattern. No aircraft were in the vicinity. It was a mistake and I will be more careful in the future.




Synopsis: UAV operator reported inadvertently entering Class D airspace.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft Cabin Pressure warning horn sounded as Cabin Altitude warning light flashed while aircraft climbed through FL190. Aircrew applied Boldface/Boxed items. Aircraft diverted [to a nearby airport] for an uneventful straight-in approach/landing. Aircraft taxied to gate. Passengers were attended to and deplaned. Commendations to Center; Approach; the FO and FAs.


Second narrative: We immediately donned our masks and worked to establish Crew communication. The Captain initially had some issues hearing radio and intercom transitions but this was sorted out in a minute or two.  Prior to the event; there were no issues with the packs or ducts or pressurization controller. The only other light we observed was the OFF SCHED DESCENT Light.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported loss of cabin pressure climbing out of FL190. Flight diverted to a suitable nearby airport.
Date: 201201
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After the announcement was made by me to disarm doors and crosscheck standby for interphone confirmation; I made the call. Door 1 and 2 were confirmed as disarmed and crosschecked; but door 4 indicated that 4 right was disarmed but 4 left was jammed with all arming indicators showing disarmed. I notified the cockpit of the jamming and it was written up for maintenance. When the Mechanic got on board he indicated that the door was already open. It was discovered that door 4 right was written up as jammed. Door 4 right was the door that was opened by catering. The door that was jammed was actually 4 left. We left the door once mechanics were on board to fix the problem.




Synopsis: B757 Flight Attendant reports a jammed rear entry door during gate arrival and attempted disarming. When mechanics arrive it is discovered that the wrong door may have been written up in the maintenance log.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Enroute; Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Enroute; Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb; received climb clearance to 17;000 FT. While climbing with autopilot engaged (as pilot flying) we received clearance to 'Climb to 280.' I believe First Officer readback 'Climb 17 for 280.' First Officer reset altitude set window and pointed; I confirmed FL280 by pointing and [stating] verbally '280'. As we were climbing through FL180 ATC called with '[Company] say altitude climbing to.' First Officer responded 'FL280.' ATC said 'Stop your climb; descend to 17;000. Then Controller said; 'I said turn to heading 280.' First Officer reset altitude to 17;000. I stopped climb at 18;200 FT. We reset our altimeters to last setting and descended to 17;000. After level; First Officer queried ATC with 'Are we having or going to have any issues?' ATC Controller said 'No.' At no time was there any doubt in either of our minds that we were cleared to FL280 by this Controller. This was a correctly applied procedure with readback of our ATC instructions by this crew to this Controller; and we were professional in all of our procedures and techniques.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew heard and read back clearance from Center Controller to 'climb to 280.' During subsequent climb; Controller advised flight crew that the clearance was for 'heading 280.'
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Earlier in the trip; the First Officer was rushing; and executed FMC navigation changes before I had a chance to verify them. I asked him to slow down and give me a chance to verify before he executed changes and he accommodated my request. I also noted that the First Officer was doing what almost all Company Pilots do when an altitude change came in. He dialed in the new altitude on the MCP (Mode Control Panel); pointed at it; stated it and began the climb or descent with no input from the other Pilot. I did not counsel him about this because that is so commonly the way altitude changes are handled; despite guidance to the contrary in the manual.On the flight in question; we were on an assigned heading when the Controller cleared us direct STL and a climb to FL390. As I read back the clearance; I observed the First Officer dial 39;000 feet in the MCP (Control Display Unit); point at it and state 'three nine oh;' and press the Altitude Intervention button. I verified that FL390 came up as the target altitude on the MCDU. While I was verifying that the aircraft was beginning to climb; the First Officer brought up STL on the FMC LEGS Page 1. I verified the programing was correct and stated; 'That looks good' and watched him execute the change. I took my attention back to the altitude and could see by then that the aircraft was beginning a climb and the thrust was increasing. I never confirmed that the First Officer selected LNAV or that the aircraft turned toward STL. A few minutes later; the Controller called and pointed out our error. We then took the proper procedural steps to get the aircraft on course to STL.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported course deviation because he did not notice the nonflying pilot not execute an assigned route from ATC.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Aircraft component: Altitude
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ATC reported me as traffic to another aircraft; telling him I was at 9000 ft; when I was at 8500 ft. I had the correct altimeter setting; and cross checked against the Mode C report display on my transponder; and it was reporting 8500 in corrected PA. (Altimeter setting was 29.91 so corrected and uncorrected should be close). Communicating to ATC; he was unconvinced there was something unusual happening; but I further cross checked against the pressure altimeter in my iPad mini4; and it agreed that I was at about 8500 ft. The GPS altitude was about 9000 ft; though; and I have ADS-B out. After frequency change to LA center; a very similar discrepancy seemed to occur between a different aircraft and ATC. Is it possible that ATC displays are showing altitudes that are sometimes derived from ADS-B and sometimes from Mode-C?  That seems really dangerous under conditions where GPS altitude differs from corrected pressure altitude.




Synopsis: AA5 pilot at 8500 feet reported being informed by ZAB that his Mode C showed 9000 feet. The reporter believed that the problem was with ZAB.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach to DCA we requested an RNAV approach with approach control; final controller cleared us for a visual...we were IMC. We told him we wanted the RNAV. He asked who we requested that with. Gave us a vector to final; and cleared us for the approach. I selected LNAV. I believe I then selected minimums then VNAV. The aircraft seemed to react as I expected. We broke out of the bases around 3000 ft aircraft was following the magenta command bars yet after breaking out and descending the visual picture was not right to me. I was checking altitudes when the tower controller advised they had a low alt alert to check our altimeter. I was cross checking everything; determined we were in fact low. Canceled the auto pilot and hand flew to climb back to 1000-1200 ft re-intercepted glide path and landed. I thought about this for quite some time. After sleeping on it I can only figure I was in LVL CHG and not VNAV. But I am still not exactly sure why the jet followed the command bars and ended up low.There were many stress factors that day; from waking up to a blizzard; plowing snow before work; having my sump pump fail at home that morning and arranging to get it fixed on a Saturday of a blizzard. Driving to work in a blizzard. Had aircraft loaded; door closed and ready to depart at XA50; getting deiced twice and not pushing off the gate till after XH00 and all the passenger drama; deice drama; airport open then closed then open. Looking back this had a toll on my decision process by XJ00 that evening (the time of the event). It is many small items - the blizzard; ATC not knowing it's IMC; getting a 'different' vector to final; high but not too high. Many small occurrences can add up to a high work load after a long day.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported receiving a low altitude alert on approach to DCA after following flight director LVL CHG guidance when he thought he was in VNAV.
Date: 202003
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We need antiseptic spray; wipes and gels so we can clean our work area and equipment. Also they are shutting down work areas in product sort and combining all of us together; how are we supposed to follow social distancing?




Synopsis: Ground employee reported concern over his employer's Coronavirus related procedures.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pax Seat
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was asked to go out to aircraft to look at the exit row seats and the tray tables in row 14 of a A319. The concern is that both the 'in-arm' and the 'seat-back' tray-tables are installed. If both tables are extended at the same time it will block the egress of passengers from the Aircraft in the event of an emergency. If they are all extended at the same time there will be six tray-tables overlapping each other and blocking the path on both sides of the plane. [Recommend to] Check with engineering for proper tray-table installation; also check configuration of all A319 aircraft. Maintenance Inspector. Ramp.

Callback: Reporter stated he has not seen a dual configuration of 'in-arm' and 'seat-back' tray tables at Emergency Exit seat rows on their other fleet of aircraft.  He was recently informed by his company Engineering department that the FAA certified the configuration and no further action will be taken to address his concerns.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Inspector reports about a company A319 aircraft that had both 'in-arm' and 'seat-back' tray tables installed at the left and right Emergency Exit rows. If both tables are extended at the same time; they will block egress of passengers.  If they are all extended at the same time there will be six tray-tables overlapping each other and blocking the exit path on both sides of the plane.