elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
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 Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I pointed out Aircraft Y to MOT approach descending from FL260 to FL200 delaying in the M3 south and M4 south areas.  Aircraft Y was on station at FL200 in M3 South and M4 South; within the lateral confines of MOT Approach.  MOT approach departed Aircraft X.  The LOA between MOT approach and ZMP states departures will be climbing to FL230 or their requested altitude; if lower than FL230.  I took the radar hand off about 15 miles SE of the MOT airport at 100 climbing.  My thought was this would aid the approach controller in separating Aircraft X from Aircraft Y.  To my surprise; Aircraft X checked on out of 113 climbing to FL230.  Aircraft Y was now in a turn into Aircraft X.  I stopped Aircraft X.  This scenario; placed a commercial airliner in unsafe proximity to an unmanned aircraft that could not see and avoid traffic.  Minot approach is a military approach control.  I feel more complete training is needed at MOT Approach.  At ZMP; this is not considered positive separation.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller describes a conflict between a CRJ200 departing MOT and a UAV operating in an MOA at FL200.  MOT Departure had not restricted the CRJ to stay below FL200 until cleared to climb by ZMP but had instead cleared the CRJ to climb in accordance with the LOA without regard for the UAV.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CIU.Airport, MI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I have heard from other crewmembers that the charting for CIU does not depict a significant displaced threshold for RWY34. The Jeppesen charting does not depict this closed runway; but on AirNav.com it is discussed in the airport details and it is on the NOS chart. 'VEHICLE TESTING IN PROGRESS DURING WINTER MONTHS ON SECTIONS FO CLSD/ABNDD PARALLEL TWY; SE OF APCH END RY 34. AREA MAY BE PLOWED TO BARE SFC BUT IS NOT AVBL FOR ACFT ARRS OR DEPS.' I believe the Jeppesen chart should depict this closed section of runway to prevent inadvertent landing on this pavement. Please compare the NOS chart to the Jeppesen chart to see what I am referring to. Proper charting of the Jeppesen plate would be a good start; and in the interim add a note to the 10-7 page for crews to use caution.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported that CIU Runway 34 approach end very long displaced threshold is not charted on the Jeppesen commercial airport chart. The NOS chart accurately depicts the environment.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After getting on the aircraft to fly; I did all my pre-flight duties including putting my personal luggage away and doing my safety checks. Just before we were ready to board; the flight crew including myself; was notified that someone had tested positive for COVID-19 from the inbound flight. We were later told that it was a passenger who tested positive for COVID-19. After waiting and many phone calls by the ground management as well as the pilots; it was decided ground personnel would clean the area where the customer had sat more thoroughly than just the tray table areas. The passenger was said to have been sitting in row X that tested positive. The cleaning personnel who wipe down the areas cleaned row X and the surrounding 6 rows behind it as a precaution. They then did it again because the cleaning solution being used says on the directions that it must sit for at least XX minutes on the surfaces being cleaned to properly be effective. Once the cleaning process was finished and completed; we boarded the flight and went on our way.The safety concern here is that there is no protocol for this exact situation and possible exposure. Our whole working crew and whatever ground personnel who entered the plane post flight are possibly exposed to this virus. I personally work in the affected area of the row. I sat in the row waiting for answers as to the protocols on what we were to do next. I touched all overhead bins around row X; the bathroom; bulkhead working station; and all surrounding areas that all could have been affected by this customer who tested positive. It's also not known if this customer had affected any other parts of the cabin and if this virus is on surfaces of the plane in more than just row X and the area of the aircraft that all the crew had to walk on to get on the aircraft.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported possible COVID-19 exposure from a passenger on the inbound flight. The crew used the same aircraft outbound after being notified of the positive test.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were two hours late due to ATC closure (ZZZ Center). After discussing with Dispatch that we would be very close to Crew day; we launched from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Landed approximately two hours late and took off from ZZZ1 in time to land back at ZZZ within Crew day; however; upon landing (with 20 minutes to spare) there were approximately 10 aircraft waiting for a gate. I sent Dispatch an ACARS telling them that we were going to exceed our 13-hour Crew day. I was told by ZZZ Ops and Dispatch that gates were being issued 'first-come; first-serve.' We waited approximately 45 minutes before making it to a gate. Total day was approximately 30 minutes over allowed hours.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported being two hours late due to ATC COVID Center Closure and going over daily allowed work hours.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PIE.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: P180 Avanti
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B TPA; Class D PIE
ATC / advisory: Tower PIE
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb; the primary pitch [horizontal stabilizer trim] controls were not working.  This became evident just prior to the level off altitude of 1;600 FT MSL.  The aircraft was in a nose up position.  While switching to secondary trim and waiting for the secondary trim to catch up; pitch and power were used to complete a level off.  This resulted in an inadvertent overshoot of the altitude by just over 200 FT MSL.  Once the secondary pitch trim caught up; a normal descent and landing was performed without further incident.

Callback: Reporter stated the failure involved the horizontal stabilizer trim.



Synopsis: P180 Captain overshot clearance limit in climb when the primary horizontal stabilizer trim failed.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The purpose of the flight described here was an IFR flight lesson. Only my student pilot (PPL helicopter) and myself were on-board the Robinson R44 Raven 2 helicopter. We were planning to fly for about 90 min and had about 40 gal of fuel on board. Our combined weight is about 350 pounds and our weight and balance indicated that we were well within the approved limits at all times from takeoff until landing. Weather was VFR.A few minutes after a normal take-off from ZZZ; we experienced a 'low RPM' warning signal. Proper corrective action was immediately taken to remedy this (lower collective and roll on throttle) and since nothing else indicated any type of malfunction; I thought that we had a possible slow response of the governor to a light turbulence we had just flown through. About a minute after this first event; we experienced another similar 'low RPM'. At this point we decided to turn around and go back to ZZZ (we were about 6 miles away from the airport). From that point on; it turned out that the only way to keep 100% RPM was by keeping our collective low; which resulted in a slow loss of altitude. All engine gauges indicated normal operation (i.e.; in the green range) and the manifold pressure indicated about 20 inch of Hg. However; any attempt to regain altitude by raising collective resulted in low RPM (engine was unable to deliver more power). As a precautionary maneuver; we landed on the first open field and shut down the engine immediately after touch down (we noticed smoke emanating from the engine as we landed). We landed smoothly on a grass field and neither the student-pilot nor I were injured; and no damage was caused to the aircraft (except for the engine reduced capability to deliver power). I did not declare emergency as our precautionary landing turned out to be the right decision before an emergency maneuver would have been required if we had continued to fly. Our mechanic is checking the engine and; if required; we can report on the exact problem that has occurred.




Synopsis: R44 Helicopter Instructor reported a precautionary landing in a field due to a loss of RPM.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Special Use ZZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was working the south side sectors of the ZZZ1 area while training on finals.  There was minimal final traffic and the vast majority of the traffic was within the sectors I am certified on.  Aircraft X was a non-radar ID SFRA aircraft inbound to ZZZ2.  I forgot that ZZZ3 airspace was open at the time and did not call the traffic to ZZZ3 approach as I should have.  There was no conflicting traffic.  I should have used an additional memory aid to remind me that their approach control was open.  It also has been challenging keeping up with busier traffic on VFR days on scopes I'm not very current on given standard COVID/winter traffic levels/others training on that position.I wish we had a better memory aid system in place for ZZZ3 being open as I think this a common mistake people often make.  Maybe we can make the airspace yellow when it is open similarly to how we do with the RXXXX restricted areas?




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported an airspace violation and cited not being sure if another sector was open or not open as a contributing factor.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: It was my first time loading Hazmat other than dry ice. I received 4 boxes of category 3 flammable gas. I pulled out the Hazmat binder and filled out the form. I called the safety hotline to ensure I filled it out correctly but no one answered. I called Operations and Name answered. I sent him pictures of the form I completed and shipping papers. He verified that the paperwork was correct. I however did not realize I needed to attach copies of the red shipping papers to the form. It was been one year since training when I learned about Hazmat. Being a First Officer in the charter department; I never dealt with Hazmat. I should have reviewed the Hazmat process before I was released to the line as a Captain. I have reviewed the procedures and am aware of the proper procedures. I became aware when I was submitting the form on the pm side. I saw another Captain stapling the shipping papers to the form. I notified Dispatch of the situation. [The cause of the event was] my flight was an overflow from another aircraft so loading started last minute so there was a rush to get my airplane loaded. I should have slowed down to make sure I submitted the paperwork correctly. [I] communicated with Dispatch [regarding the event]. [I suggest] recurrent [training] of Hazmat.




Synopsis: C-99 Captain reported incomplete submission of required Hazmat documents.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Lines; Connectors; Fittings
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft experienced loss of System A Hydraulics. Accomplished Loss of System A Hydraulics QRH procedure. Captain elected to divert and declared emergency. Dispatch notified and agreed. Flight attendants; passengers and the divert airport operations were notified. Due to landing weight of approximately 123;000 LBS we accomplished Overweight Landing QRH procedure and all parameters were followed and met. Captain performed a normal flaps 30 landing and due to inoperative nose wheel steering; aircraft was towed to the gate. Passengers and crew boarded another available aircraft and we then continued to the filed destination. Maintenance advised us that a braided hose failed.




Synopsis: A B737 'A' Hydraulic System braided hose failed in cruise causing the loss of all fluid so an emergency was declared and the flight diverted to a nearby airport for an overweight landing.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Inbound to Newark on the FQM3; we were given a heading to the left (around 080) just prior to SWEET. We were at 6;000 MSL and getting numerous civilian traffic alerts for at least 6-7 minutes straight. Our last advisory was an aircraft 1130-1200 approaching 500 FT above us. As the aircraft merged together; we received an RA due to the other aircraft now descending to around 6;000 FT (our current altitude). The First Officer immediately disengaged the autopilot and climbed in accordance with the RA instructions. At the last second; ATC gave an instruction to turn hard right to avoid traffic. We climbed to around 7;000 FT MSL and advised ATC we had received an RA. We were instructed to go back to our heading and altitude when safety permitted.


Second narrative: As we were climbing the Captain said he saw the traffic when we were about 200 FT above it. ATC advised us that the aircraft was told to stay at 6;500 FT (VFR) and they were no longer in contact with the aircraft. The threats came from several GA aircraft that were not in contact with ATC. These aircraft were also not following previously given instructions.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 flight crew experienced an NMAC with a VFR general aviation aircraft while on descent to EWR.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were descending to 9;000 feet on ATC clearance approximately 15 miles from [airport] we were switched from ARTCC to [airport] Approach. Approach acknowledged check-in and said 'cleared for visual approach to Runway XX' at [airport]. Clearance was read back and we Pilots discussed for a moment and asked for confirmation that we were cleared for the visual to Runway XX.  ATC confirmed we were cleared for the visual.  We continued to descend and at 8;200 feet and Approach asked if we were cleared to 9;000 feet.  We responded that we were descending due to the clearance for the visual approach to Runway XX.  ATC responded that we were cleared to 9;000 feet and to 'expect' the visual.  ATC then said to continue descent to 4;000 feet.The Captain and I both heard cleared the visual to Runway XX rather than 'expect visual to XX.' The visual approach was conducted and the airplane landed safely at [airport]. Controller sounded bored and tired.


Second narrative: Checked in on Approach Control with previous Controller clearance direct to [fix] maintain 9;000 feet. Checked on frequency and Approach Controller cleared us visual Runway XX. I asked First Officer to verify visual clearance 'verify we are cleared visual Runway XX ?' Controller responded we were 'cleared visual XX.' Now with slow descent and busy frequency; Controller then asked if we were assigned 9;000 feet as we were now passing approximately 7;700 feet. We replied how we had verified with him; 'cleared visual.' He then said 'just descend to 4;000 feet. Then subsequently asked if we had airport (which we did throughout assigned check on with his frequency) and again cleared us visual Runway XX.


Synopsis: Both pilots heard ATC clear them for a Visual Approach. When descending ATC questioned them about the descent clearance. The pilot informed ATC that they had been cleared for a Visual Approach. ATC then assigned the flight an altitude and later re-cleared it for a Visual Approach.