elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A few teenagers who were part of a larger group; that were on their way to military boot camp; expressed being hungry but not having a card to pay for purchases. Some of them had never flown before or hadn't flown in a while. Since they didn't have a parent or guardian to pay for their meals; I accepted their cash and swiped my personal card to pay for the total of their purchases.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant reported a group of men enroute to military boot camp were hungry; but had only cash so she swiped her credit card for their food purchases and received their cash in exchange.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: SSCOT1 arrival into Miami; I had set the FMS up for a Runway 8L arrival. We were subsequently told to expect Runway 09. I selected ILS Runway 09 on the arrival page of the FMS. A moment later; Approach Control asked which runway we preferred. Since I had already briefed LOC 8L and had the NAV radios; altimeters; set for that runway; I requested 8L. When I went to the arrival page on the FMS the only runway listed was ILS 09. I reselected the arrival (SSCOT1) again; figuring it would list all the runways. It did not. During this time; Approach gave us clearance to join the localizer for 8L. I was unable to get the approach set up for 08L so requested Runway 09. We received vectors and joined the final for Runway 09 without and problem. At some point; however; I believe we crossed through the localizer for Runway 08 before being vectored to join Runway 09 final.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reports setting up for Runway 8L at MIA then being informed to expect Runway 9; which is selected from the arrival page of the FMC. ATC then offers a choice and the reporter requests Runway 8L but 8L is no longer an available option on the arrival page even after re-selecting the RNAV arrival; so back to Runway 9.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: First a story: Once upon a time in a place far; far away called FAA Land; the airlines would do things in compliance with FAA regulations like not fly airplanes with cracks in the fuselage or reintroduce call signs that knowingly cause confusion amongst pilots and controllers or other things that intentionally endangered the flying public. If they didn't comply with FAA regulations and requirements they faced fines for their misbehavior. Fast forward to today when alas; Air Carrier AAAB and Air Carrier AABB have been reintroduced into the NAS and generally meet daily in the same vicinity when it is very busy. I was working a High sector and worked Air Carrier AABB off Atlanta and switched the aircraft to another sector. I quick looked the sector; which was 'Red' at the time; and sure enough there was Air Carrier AAAB Northbound. I received an email from the ERC within the last month that said that Air Carrier would change these call signs by this date. I think they did change; but they are now back. These call signs were a known issue to anyone who would listen. I informed the pilot who was very upset that it was a known issue and I personally would do everything I could to get something changed. I expressed the sentiment that now that a dangerous incident had occurred that maybe change could be brought about. Well; nothing but temporary change has happened in two years. If we knowingly allow the airlines to endanger flight safety what kind of regulatory agency are we? We should be ensuring that the airlines don't do things like this that endanger the public rather than helping them develop procedures that are ill-advised; ill-conceived and ill-implemented.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller described an unsafe condition noting the similar call signs used by one air carrier that frequently operates flights in the same area and at the same time with easily confused flight numbers.
Date: 202201
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During the initial climb out of DEN shortly after take off (once the ECAMS were uninhabited) we got an alert message saying ADSB 1 and ADSB 2 were faulted. We chose to disregard the messages until we were at a safer altitude where we could address them. Once the after take off checklist was completed I addressed the messages. Passing about 10;000 ft. the problem disappeared. The only time I have seen an ADSB problem is when the GPS was jammed or faulted. I'm not sure if this has something to do with the roll out of 5G. We didn't have any problems the rest of the flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported loss of ADS-B 1 and 2 on departure out of DEN. Reporter cited 5G as possibly contributing; and the systems returned to normal a few minutes later.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We are in a left turn and climbing to altitude given by tower. Handed off to Departure. Given the same heading and climb clearance. Then given a new climb to altitude. I am heads down working in the MCDU when the Captain (CA) pushes the nose down and pulls thrust levers back. I glance at the MFD for TCAS traffic (on lowest range) and see nothing and then look outside and see a small single engine aircraft moving left to right at 01:00 high. We then continue on with our assigned heading and altitude. I report the near miss to ATC who responds with a traffic report. I confirm traffic in sight with a near miss. I finally see the traffic on TCAS after we had climbed above and away. We are then handed off to Center and continue the flight with no further incident.This event illustrates the importance of keeping heads up; outside the aircraft and scanning for other aircraft to see and avoid.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer attributed a 'near miss' with a small; single engine aircraft to being 'heads down' working in the MCDU on climb out. There was no TCAS alert until after evasive action had been taken.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Heating System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I wrote up in the logbook the lack of heat on the cockpit floor. Both pilots had very cold feet at the top of descent with the outside temperature at -60 degrees Celsius. The Captain's feet were numb from the cold as I had on only standard dress socks. The First Officer had on double socks and thermal long underwear. The heat in the cockpit was run uncomfortably high at 79/80 to try and get some heat to the floor. We also try to keep our feet up on the installed foot pegs to get some heat to our feet. Our feet are required to be on the rudders for landing. I suggest that an emergency order be issued to install the manufacturer's foot/floor heaters in both pilot positions to alleviate this debilitating work environment.The company [is] aware of this problem; but continues to operate the aircraft without the foot heaters; directly degrading pilot performance with limbs so cold you can barely feel the rudders.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported that the lack of cockpit foot heaters results in degraded pilot performance; particularly in regard to use of the rudder pedals.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon initial descent from FL230 to LARKS intersection at 16000 feet we encountered continuous moderate turbulence and advised Approach of the conditions and that we were unable to maintain best forward speed of 200 knots. Throughout the entire descent from 16000 until our glide slope intercept for 35L we were encountering continued turbulence and advised the Controllers unable any faster. We were sequenced 5 miles behind a heavy Aircraft and given the visual approach to land. Upon the descent out of 10000 we continued the moderate turbulence as well as a 50kt direct crosswind from ~260 heading from the left. We were told to maintain best forward speed before 6 mile final for spacing as aircraft were trailing. With our current conditions we were unable to do so with the full passenger count as well as the crosswinds and the wake turbulence from the other Aircraft. We were given clearance to land and taxi off and told to copy a number for possible deviation. No aircraft went around after our landing nor were we told to go around. We believe if there was a problem with the spacing that we should have been told to break off course and go around so the larger; faster aircraft could land and we could get sequenced again.


Second narrative: I was flying into DEN and Approach asked to keep the speed at 170k to DYMON. I did the best to my ability keeping it as close to 170 as possible however I was experiencing wind shear and moderate turbulence until short final. I was also in trail of a heavy producing wake turbulence. Upon landing I was given a number to call ATC.


Synopsis: Small Transport flight crew reported they were unable to maintain ATC assigned speed on arrival into DEN because of wind shear; turbulence; and wake effects from the preceding Heavy Transport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: DC Battery
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL330; I observed an EICAS status message; MAIN BAT CHGR. This was a repeat item from the flight before ours. Referenced QRH and [Flight Manual] for direction. No QRH procedure found. Status message list indicates that this message means that the main battery charger has failed. I recalled from previous ground schools that this message is one of a few status messages that can be potentially serious and deserves some attention. I established a SATCOM call with Dispatch and Maintenance. Crew and Dispatch agree with maintenance recommendation to divert flight to [a nearby suitable airport] where the part was available and repairs could be made.We expected to land slightly overweight so [ATC was advised] and Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting was requested. We ran the Emergency Landing Checklist and prepared for our arrival and approach procedure. We also checked the runway distance required at our expected landing weight. A normal approach and landing was made with light braking only below 60 knots. The landing weight was 312;555 lbs.There were also 2 additional mechanical issues on this flight that were not related to the diversion. The crew before us on this jet had also written up the auto throttles as being unstable and erratic. This was addressed by Maintenance and signed off. We also observed that the auto throttles were unstable and erratic with inappropriate; random movement individually; and as a pair. The weather forecast for our ETA at [our international destination] was for 400 meters vis with 100 overcast ceiling; requiring an auto land with auto throttles. Also; descending for [divert airport] in icing conditions; when selecting wing anti ice on at FL220 per our procedure; we observed an EICAS advisory message L WING ANTI-ICE; along with the amber VALVE light near the switch on the overhead panel. I cycled the switch several times at different throttle settings with no success. We descended to a lower; warmer altitude with light rime ice accumulation visible on the wiper frames through the windshield.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information].


Synopsis: B767-300ER flight crew reported receiving MAIN BAT CHARGER EICAS message; so they diverted to a nearby suitable airport.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Sighted a drone while approaching to land RWY 22 at LGA.  It was seen within a 2 mile final slightly below and to the left of our aircraft at a distance of less than 100 yards.  It was reported to the tower with a follow up phone call to the supervisor as requested by the controller in position.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reports sighting a drone on final approach to Runway 22 at LGA. No evasive action is necessary.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: S-58/S-58T Choctaw/Seahorse
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: None
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at 3;500 feet and 106 knots ground speed. Aircraft was in straight and level flight. I noticed a 3% torque spilt between the #1 and #2 engine; with the number 2 beginning to slowly decrease in torque. N1 remained steady at 93% which is normal reading with both engines at 80% torque. The number 2 motor rapidly declined in torque causing a larger torque split to occur. Once the torque split became 15% difference; the N1 on the number 2 engine began to decrease. It went from 93% down to 73% causing an even larger torque spilt by 60%. At that time I decided to transition to single engine flight (OEI) and make a mayday call requesting vectors to the nearest airfield. Approach vectored me to ZZZ. I kept the engine at idle; since it was still producing minimal power. I figured some power is better than no power. So I used what power the number 2 engine had coupled with my good number 1 engine. Preformed a low power roll on landing into ZZZ and taxied onto the ramp. Upon visual inspection of the engine and discussion with the director of maintenance it was decided that an attempt to start the #2 in manual fuel control mode was the next course of action. Thinking that the fuel control was the culprit. The engine was started and sustained power along with the number 1 engine. The flight was then resumed in manual mode to our hangar in ZZZ1 where maintenance was performed. After inspection of the engine a borescope revealed that the #2 had suffered a near catastrophic failure. With multiple hot section blades missing; broken off; cracked; and folded over. Along with significant sized holes in the combustion cans.




Synopsis: S-58T pilot reported a diversion after decreasing engine torque on #2 engine.  After a manual restart and ferry flight to a maintenance base; borescope of the affected engine found major damage to the internal components of the affected engine.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Briefed the ILS 26L IAH prior to top of descent (DRLLR 5). Center delayed our descent due to traffic. When descent clearance was given; told to maintain 310 kts. or greater. We were already over 6;000 ft. above descent profile. We were able to get back on profile just prior to approach handoff. When switched to Approach Control; they told us to expect RNAV Y 26R. After positive aircraft transfer control; I loaded the RNAV 26R and briefed the approach. We were expecting vectors to final RNAV Y 26R. I became PF (Pilot Flying) again. We were still descending on the arrival passing through approximately 8;000 ft. and 6 miles from SKLER when approach cleared us the RNAV Y 26R approach. We then realized the RNAV approach started at SKLER and included an arc segment to final. The Captain reloaded the approach with the SKLER transition. As we approached SKLER; everything looked good as we accomplished approach procedures. Autopilot was still engaged. Approaching DRKAR; we were expecting the aircraft to start a right hand turn on the arc. It didn't turn as we continued straight ahead. Captain said we need to turn as I selected HDG SEL (Heading Select) to start a right hand turn on the arc. We were a couple seconds late to start the turn. At this time ATC said we were late on the turn and gave us vectors to intercept visual [Runway] 26R. Visual approach and landing were uneventful. We debriefed after block in and recreated load the FMC. Although the arc portion showed on the route; there was also a vectors line after DRKAR. We think this is why the aircraft didn't turn on the arc and maybe we needed to sequence the FMC.




Synopsis: First Officer reported not verifying the correct waypoint sequencing on RNAV approach due to a late clearance change from ATC.