elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While boarding a flight I noticed a very large hard covered box in the overhead bin. I asked who's it was and a guest said it was his. I asked him what it was and he said a drum set. I asked if it had a Lithium battery and he said yes. I asked if it could be taken out he said no. That's why It's on the plane because they wouldn't let it go below and I said OK. He said he does it all the time.I then went up and asked the Customer Service Representative to come back and look at it if they had checked it out and she also had a lead on board neither one of them ever answered my questions. Did someone approve this item?I went and talk to the Captain because I was concerned this large box was half the size of the bin with lithium batteries in it and I know that it would not fit in the battery containment bag. We were flying 5 hours over water.I talked to the Captain and he said there were cell phones and laptops on Board with Lithium batteries in them and I said but this box would not fit in our battery containment bag they would. He then said he thought it was OK; so the guest brought his large bag in the overhead bin. I would like to know if this item is approved?We should have checked this item out further before flying.




Synopsis: B737-900 Flight Attendant reported concerns regarding transport of large Lithium Ion battery powered device in cabin overhead without thorough research.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Upon showing to the airport and checking the logbook as I normally do; I found that the MEL 28-15-XX and 28-15-XX that were applied to Aircraft X the previous two days had been changed for misapplication of the MEL. The correct MEL should have been 28-15-XX and 28-15-XX which considers the outer tank fuel unusable for flight planning calculations. When the first two MELs were applied the situation we had (transfer valves opening on ground) seemed to be the correct MEL. After subsequent flights on [the next day] another crew saw the transfer valves did not open and suspected the wrong MEL had been applied. This plane has had multiple issues with the fuel system and everything Maintenance does to fix the problem doesn't seem to fix the issue. I am filing this report because possibly flew the airplane with the incorrect MEL applied. When I flew the airplane the MEL seemed to be correct in that the transfer valves were open and that the fuel from the outer tanks drained to the inner tanks before the inner tank reached its low level sensor to command them to open. If the future if I am ever uncertain about an MEL; I will talk to the local mechanic and Maintenance Control to make sure we are all on the same page and that we get the right MEL applied.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported MEL may or may not have been applied correctly as associated with the fuel system.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Latest update to Jepps for LAWGR 3 RNAV Arrival into Denver shows incorrect top of the block altitude at LAWGR; which does not match top of the block altitude in the FMS.  While in cruise and building the approach into Denver we saw the altitudes did not match.  Just then an aircraft on the arrival ahead of us asked Denver Center that they saw the same discrepancy; and asked what was the correct altitude.  ATC said LAWGR should be At or Below 22;000 feet. (and above 19;000 feet); and that they were aware that aircraft were reporting seeing At or Below 20;000 feet for that point on their Electronic Flight Books; but were having the correct altitudes show in the FMS when loading the arrival.  I told ATC we had the same issue.  They and the next sector on the arrival both repeated that the top altitude for LAWGR should read 220B-190A.   Same thing on today's flight from LNK to DEN on the LAWGR--we briefed the correction and confirmed again the top altitude with ATC. Send out an email to all company pilots about this and to use the altitudes in the FMS for LAWGR when on that arrival.  Get it corrected in Jepps.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported a discrepancy between Jeppesen Charts and FMS database in the altitude blocks at the fix LAWGR on the LAWGR3 RNAV Arrival to DEN. The FMS database has the correct altitude block.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HDN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Dash 8-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were departing out of Hayden. The First Officer made a call to taxi at the non controlled airport and neither of us heard anyone else make calls. He then called ATC to get our release. They said we were released and neither of us recalled him saying anything about any traffic in the area. The First Officer than made one more call to say we were about to depart Runway 10. I crossed the hold short line and then prior to making a turn onto the runway to line up and takeoff I saw a corporate jet landing 28. I hit my brakes hard and stayed there. Even though we had crossed the hold short line; I felt it was safer to stay there then to attempt a quick taxi onto the runway and then off at the next taxiway. The jet then made a turn off well before they got to us. The First Officer and I discussed it and both agreed we never heard any calls from the other jet and both know we got released by Denver for departure and didn't recall any traffic alerts and they definitely did not hold us for release for an inbound aircraft. Make sure to start listening to ATC Center and the airport CTAF sooner in case they talk about traffic before we get on frequency for departure. Thought we were doing a good job of monitoring both; but could have been distracted when doing a checklist.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain preparing to depart Runway 10 at HDN notices a corporate jet landing Runway 28 and stops short of the runway but over the hold line. CTAF procedures had been used and an IFR release had just been received from Denver Center with no mention of in bound traffic.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Incursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff 34R. Another aircraft had just cleared Runway 34R at E and not turned south on to B taxiway. We were cleared for takeoff. As we approached E on 34R we were in the process of rotating and it was apparent that the other aircraft's tail was not on the taxiway side of the intersection markings. The tail of the other aircraft was not intruding over the runway side marker paint. As we passed the tail of the other aircraft we experienced a strong bump from his engines. Takeoff and climb were normal after that.


Second narrative: We mentioned it to Tower who replied that he was 'clear of the runway.'


Synopsis: An Air Carrier Crew departed SEA Runway 34R and received jet blast when barely airborne from a B747-400 which had not cleared the runway hold short lines to exit the runway.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower STL
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: A Cherokee was on about a 5 mile final for Runway 30R with a ground speed of 120 KTS. An MD80 was switched to my frequency by Approach Control. The MD80 was about 4.5 miles behind the Cherokee with a 60 KT overtake. I issued instructions to the MD80 to make an S turn for spacing with the slower Cherokee. Weather was good VFR and the MD80 was on a Visual Approach. The MD80 complied and made a good S turn. I advised the Cherokee to plan an early turn off at Taxiway J if possible for the traffic following. The Cherokee said they would comply. The Cherokee landed and was able to turn off at Taxiway J without difficulty; made a prompt turn off and did not stop as he was issued taxi instructions to parking. The MD80 was cleared to land as the Cherokee was rolling out on the runway as I anticipated he would make Taxiway J without problem. The Cherokee was off the runway completely; and taxiing at a good rate; when the MD80 crossed the landing threshold. As the MD80 was in the flair and about to touch down the ASDE alerted; 'Runway 30R; Go Around'. It was too late to issue a go around in my opinion; and so I did not. The ASDE indicated the conflict was in fact between the two concerned aircraft (red flashing circle observed around the Cherokee). I don't believe adequate spacing was provided behind the Cherokee to start with; as an S turn by the MD80 and an early turn off were both necessary to make it work; but it did work. The reason I did not send the MD80 around was twofold.  1. The MD80 was too close to touchdown and; 2. The Cherokee was clear; and I had just scanned the runway so I knew it was clear; and the ASDE was indicating the Cherokee was the conflict which I knew was incorrect. This last part all happened pretty quickly; as you can imagine. I really don't know; unless something can be done to tighten up ASDE parameters to avoid alerts that aren't necessary. Less than 5 minutes later I had another ASDE alert for a closed runway; telling me to send an aircraft around that was on final for a completely different runway.




Synopsis: STL Controller described his/her reasoning for not complying with an ASDE-X commanded go around; the reporter noting the 'conflicting' traffic was observed completely clear of the landing runway.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JWN.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E JWN
ATC / advisory: CTAF JWN
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being turned loose from ATC; I; Aircraft X; entered right downwind for [Runway] 20. I announced my presence and my intention to land on 20. I heard Aircraft Y was also right downwind for 20. I called him to try and see where he was in relation to the field and did not get a response. I called Aircraft Z on the end of 20 and told him he had time to get off before I turned base. I called to Aircraft Y again and did not hear a response. I announced my turn for right base to 20. Aircraft Z on the ground announced that Aircraft Y had also called for right base for 20. My wife screamed and looked out of my left window and there was Aircraft Y. He turned left and I continued my descent and landed.




Synopsis: Cessna 182 pilot reported a NMAC during approach at a non-towered airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Other maintenance
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LGA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was a maintenance aircraft under tow repositioning from the west side of the airport to the east side. Aircraft X was instructed to proceed via taxiways DD; G to hold short of RWY4. A portion of taxiway A was closed for aircraft that were parked on the taxiway overnight. On this flow outbound departures typically taxi via A; E and B but with taxiway A closed between E and G they had to taxi via A; G and B. My plan was to have Aircraft X hold short of RWY4 for a few minutes until a couple outbound aircraft cleared taxiway G and taxiway B. After reviewing the audio; Aircraft Y had called for outbound taxi. Mistakenly I called them Aircraft Y maintenance and gave them clearance to taxi via N; A and hold short of M. Aircraft X maintenance took the clearance and read it back. At that point Aircraft X crossed the active departure runway (RWY4) and went onto taxiway B. Even though I missed the read back; at no point did I instruct any aircraft to cross a runway. I am perplexed as to why Aircraft X did not question the clearance. They were holding short of RWY4 at G. The clearance they took was taxi N; A hold short of M and there were not crossing instructions in the clearance. There is no possible way to get to taxiway N from where they were. I got busy with other duties and caught the crossing just as they cleared. Local Control had cleared Aircraft Z for takeoff as Aircraft X was crossing. It appears that Aircraft Z delayed their takeoff roll and verified with local control that they were cleared for takeoff. I don't believe it is good practice to use an actual callsign to tow/re-position aircraft. Aircraft X is an actual flight in the NAS. [Other companies] use a combination of letters and numbers. These maintenance aircraft are typically driven by ramp workers and not pilots. Giving these guys similar sounding callsigns is not a good idea and will probably lead to more of these incidents.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: LGA Tower Controllers reported a tug driver towing an aircraft took another aircraft's instructions and taxied across a runway while a departure was cleared to takeoff.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAS
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were assigned Spot by ramp control. Upon contact with LAS ground control; the clearance was; (paraphrased); 'Taxi to Runway 25R; via [A#]; via B; hold short of A2.'We taxied single-engine and as we approached taxiway [A#]; the First Officer stated; 'STOP!' We held short of taxiway C while Aircraft Y went by at a high rate of speed. The distance between their winglet and our nose was probably 5 to 7 feet! Taxi speed for Aircraft Y was over 25 knots and possibly 30 knots.I have over 30;000 flight hours and this is the closest I have ever been to another aircraft where a potential for a collision during taxiing was evident.LAS Ground twice apologized for the event to us directly.Ground control did not issue instructions to [either Aircraft X or Y] on the potential for conflict; although we had converging clearances. We had the right of way from a priority perspective of relative distance; but the other aircraft was traveling at a faster taxi speed. Interestingly; there was a line up at the approach end for departure.Aircraft Y was approximately number four in the queue.Ground did not issue instructions that would have provided concise directions to either air carrier. Aircraft Y was taxiing at an apparent high rate of speed and was determined to get in the queue; then wait. We were lucky that the First Officer was studiously watching the other plane; and issued a forceful callout.I truly believe if Aircraft Y had to stop; it would have been abrupt.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported near collision on ground due to Ground Control not providing correct instructions.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center RKRR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During vectors to ICN we got a delay due to unauthorized drone activity. Approach Control was unable to predict the length of the delay. We were at least the 6th aircraft in line being delay vectored. We evaluated our fuel and the number of aircraft ahead of us being delayed and transmitted Pan Pan to Approach Control for vectors to land at ICN. Approach Control would not vector us to ICN. They asked for our alternate airport which was ZZZZ1. We reported to Dispatch of our diversion and followed another flight diverting to ZZZZ1. We landed; parked and later departed again to complete the flight to ICN. This diversion was due to the unauthorized drone activity. No one had the ability to predict the length of the delay. The only known and the safest course of action was to divert to our alternate airport.


Second narrative: Upon switching approach control we could here holding instructions being given to aircraft.  We immediately began evaluating options for fuel and landing.  After being vectored for around 10-15 minutes Captain made the decision to declare minimum fuel.  The approach controller  responded that we were number 7 for landing at Incheon and requested our alternate airport.  We informed him that Gimpo (RKSS) was the alternate given a vector for approach.  Landing was uneventful.  Apparently there was drone activity near RKSI which prevented aircraft from landing.  Without any clear time frame as to when we would be landing and being number 7 for landing we made the decision to divert.  Don't really have any.  Can't control rogue drone activity.


Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported diverting to the alternate airport due to a UAV blocking traffic at the primary airport and holding fuel becoming an issue.