elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was looking for a visual approach into ZZZ. The aircraft started descending on his own without a clearance. I issued a terrain alert and instructed the Pilot to climb back to a safe altitude. I notified the CIC (Controller in Charge) but they did not instruct me to issue a brasher. A low altitude alert warning should have to be manually disabled. I don't think it alerted because the aircraft was nearing his destination airport.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported an aircraft descended from its assigned altitude and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude. The Controller reported the Minimum Safe Altitude Warning did not activate.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was flying level at 9000 ft. and I got an MIA [Minimum IFR Altitude] alert so I told the aircraft to climb to 10000 ft. to clear the MIA. I radioed him again right after to inform him I needed to vector him for some military airspace. He started to question it so I told him he would need a vector or he would need to be VFR and enter a military training complex at his own risk. I noticed that through this he was not climbing. I told him that I needed him to climb right now and that I would also need to vector him. He started to climb but had already entered the MIA box of 9300 ft. The pilot sounded as if to be a foreigner and did not take the appropriate action as directed. He was confused and his delayed response is the reason for the loss of separation. I also should have caught the MIA situation sooner.Pilot needs to take action when given a clearance.




Synopsis: Denver Center Controller reported observing an aircraft that received a Minimum IFR Altitude alert and climbed the aircraft but pilot was slow to respond.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZUA.ARTCC, GU
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other Part 61
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZUA; Class G GUA
ATC / advisory: Center ZUA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were training at the practice area that is class G with no transponder. Aircraft Y (Air Carrier) was coming in to final approach. We had traffic in sight and was watching them on our GPS; and also listing to Guam center. But Guam center did not have us on radar nor Aircraft Y had us in sight. I knew that Aircraft Y was descending; I decide to climb to avoid traffic. As we did that we came directly align with each other giving us about 4;000 feet horizontal distance; getting too close to each causing a near miss. It was VFR; but there was also clouds here and there.Having no transponder; clouds being visible; and me the pilot deciding not contacting Guam center for traffic advisory where the practice area is near the ILS path was the contributing factors.I should have contacted center for traffic advisory to help me; but also other aircraft. I also should have descended because we can never out climb an air carrier. Also; I know that the Aircraft Y will never go below the final approach fix altitude.




Synopsis: GA Flight Instructor with student reported an NMAC with an air carrier aircraft while training in a practice area near GUM airport. The air carrier was on final approach to GUM. The conflict required evasive action.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Carrier X had an IFR flight plan. The aircraft filed a different route; when I sent the flight plan via the PDC the route between the pluses was not included in his flight plan. I should have not sent this flight plan. The incident occurred when Center Controller told the pilot to precede direct a fix that I should have issued to him; and he was not aware of the change to his routing. This happens a lot. When I worked under another Center they were responsible for making sure a flight plan could be sent. If the flight plan couldn't be sent; the Center would call and advise that the aircraft had to be issued a different routing. Our current Center does not have this requirement. Put the PDC on auto send and make the Center responsible for ensuring that the routing is what they want.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a wrong PDC clearance issuance; noting that the controlling Center should be the final authority in determining the clearance route.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZWY.ARTCC, NY
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZWY
ATC / advisory: Center ZWY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While at cruise at FL360 on L451 approaching JAINS Intersection; we encountered a line of thunderstorms approximately 150 miles long. Requested and obtained clearance from New York Oceanic to deviate up to 80 miles. We were unable to get through the line of thunderstorms at 80 miles and we were unable to contact New York Oceanic in order to obtain clearance to deviate further. We followed FOM procedures including transmitting in the blind and continued to 110 miles off course before we were able to get across the line. Finally we were able to receive clearance to proceed direct to the following way point.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier received ZWY clearance for an 80 NM weather deviation on L451; but needed 150 NM deviation; but unable to contact ZWY again they followed international track deviation procedures until clear of the weather.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct

Narrative: After push back during the safety demo. A passenger rang a call light in the last row. Flight attendants paused the safety demonstration and I went to see about the passenger. A woman sitting grabbing her bags stood up and said she needs to get up. I asked what her issue was and she just repeated herself then asked to get off the flight. I informed the other flight attendants and we contacted the captain. The plane went back to the gate to have the woman deplane. She retrieved her bags and began making her way to the back galley. I directed her back to the front where she walked off and the captain stopped her to ask questions. He asked for her boarding pass and where she was coming from; if she had checked bags etc and she was hesitating to answer. We looked up her information and found that she was traveling from Frankfurt and did have checked bags. The captain asked if we were comfortable keeping her bags on as it was a domestic flight and we declined. Her bags were unloaded before we departed again. This was the second instance of a situation like such in the same day. There seems to be a pattern with passengers asking to deplane at the very last minute with little to no explanation as of recent. Crew members were uncomfortable with their luggage remaining on board. I believe situations like this; airlines should be required to make sure all bags on board are accounted for when a passenger exits and also have checked bags removed whether international or domestic. I submitted a separate report for another situation like this on the same day; different flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported that after push back a passenger requested to disembark the aircraft without claiming their luggage.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CZQX.ARTCC, NF
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A CZQX
ATC / advisory: Center CZQX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While cruising at 0.82 Mach at FL350 with an FMC calculated optimum altitude of FL370; aircraft experienced unforecasted severe turbulence with the autothrottles immediately becoming disconnected and the airspeed immediately accelerated to approximately 320 kts. 0.85 Mach (5 kts. over VMO Max speed). As Pilot Flying; I manually managed the throttles to avoid any further overspeeds and requested that Pilot Monitoring coordinate for a descent to FL330. This request was made and we received a 'Standby' message. [Two minutes later]; the airspeed fluctuations became more severe and the autopilot had trouble maintaining altitude. I then advised the Pilot Monitoring that I was initiating a descent to FL330 and to advise Gander that were doing so prior to receiving ATC clearance. The PM sent this message to Gander that were descending due to severe turbulence and as we were descending through FL33.5; Gander approved our previous request for descent to FL330.


Second narrative: The plane was in cruise at FL350; the aircraft entered abruptly into severe turbulence without warning. The auto-throttles disconnected and the airspeed accelerated into the barber pole (approximately 3-5 kts. overspeed) for approximately 2-3 seconds. Followed by an abrupt deceleration and continuous vibrations of the aircraft. Previous cruising airspeed was .82M. The PF (Pilot Flying) was manually controlling the throttles to the best of his abilities. We then asked for FL330 via CPDLC. The aircraft was becoming extremely hard to control at an appropriate airspeed and altitude. We received a Standby message. [Two minutes later]; the aircraft began to enter constant severe turbulence and the decision was made to descend immediately to FL330 for the safety of flight. I advised Gander Radio that the decent to FL330 had been initiated due to the severe turbulence. We received an approval to descend to FL300 at approximately FL350. No other deviations were noted. We called Gander Radio to issue a Pirep and contacted the Dispatcher or subsequent Pireps and reports.


Synopsis: MD-11 Flight Crew reported encountering severe turbulence which resulted in evasive action for safety of flight.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Wing Skin
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During preflight we noticed a streak in an unusual spot on the underside of the wing.  Upon further inspection we noted that the streak was in fact fuel.  The location of the fuel leak was concerning to us as it was coming from a riveted area normally painted over and seamless.  I am submitting this [report] in case this is something that is of a systemic nature.


Second narrative: On preflight a fuel leak was noted on the bottom of the right hand wing.  Fuel leak was accompanied by what appears to be corrosion.  Maintenance control was notified of discrepancy.  Airplane was written up.  Maintenance control called it a fuel stain.


Synopsis: CE750 Flight Crew reports discovering a fuel leak on the bottom of the right wing during preflight.
Date: 202011
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: The reason for this report is in regard to the air filters that we have at work. I am looking to see if we can have HEPA filters in the workplace because of the spike in COVID-19 that we are having in ZZZ. These filters will help out a lot with this virus. If the aircrafts have them I believe it's just right to have the airport with them; as well as break rooms and offices. We still have many people at work that don't wear their mask; sneeze out in the open and cough. I witnessed this in the office environment I'm currently in.




Synopsis: Air Carrier office employee reported the office area for work would benefit from the installation of a higher-grade air filter to combat COVID-19.
Date: 202003
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Simulator Training
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: [I was] discussing some of the risk filters the government is using at the hospital as patients arrive.  Obviously along with questions about symptoms; they are asked about contact with anyone that has traveled to many countries our pilots still fly to.It occurred to me that our [training] group will all be a yes to that question and if any of our pilots end up positive for the virus; we as a group could end up being the perfect spread mechanism to a larger number of [company] pilots and employees.I politely don't shake hands anymore but more directly we as a fleet should consider a moratorium on the use of O2 masks in the training devices.  I am not personally that worried but smart actions would seem prudent.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer suggested a moratorium on the use of oxygen masks in the flight training devices in order to minimize the possible transmission of COVID-19.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: My FO (First Officer) and I were the only ones on board. The Flight consisted of a takeoff; climb to 4000 ft and landing at ZZZ. VFR conditions.On final approach into ZZZ during our 10min flight we had an ECAM message ENG1 CTL SYS FAULT 'Avoid Rapid thrust changes' Then a red ECAM message flashed up briefly 'N2 limit exceeded'. We were low and busy landing and the message did not stay long enough to fully read and elected to land the airplane.After touchdown and reverse deployment the engine started surging and I noticed a pulsating orange light in my peripheral vision. There were no aural or visual fire warnings; no related ECAM messages. I stowed the reverse as I determined deploying them was the last I did before the engine started surging. The FO confirmed with the tower that our left engine was on fire and pulled the fire handle on engine 1 and engaged Agent1. After stopping the aircraft the fire marshall confirmed that the fire was extinguished and we shut down engine 2. Tires were ok and we were towed to the maintenance hangar.


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


Synopsis: A330 flight crew reported getting an ENG1 CTL SYS FAULT and an N2 limit exceeded ECAM message on final approach.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oil Pressure Indication
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post Departure
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors; Logbook Entry; Manuals; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Previous afternoon shift [had] completed oil service on both engines at terminal and notated in logbook. On two aircraft that I recall; while working the night shift; Aircraft Y and Z; there were multiple sequential tasks [(work cards)] that I signed-off with a line and single signature/employee # on the Periodic Service (PS) Check as Previously Accomplished (PA); and referenced the actual logbook page in the signature block in what I thought was per our Procedures Manual (PM) XXXX. Unfortunately; I didn't notice that Procedures Manual XXXX.11.G; specifically excluded [signing] PA from the actions that are eligible [to use] to sign-off sequential tasks with one signature.The next day; while reviewing other parts of the PM; I noticed this conflict. This is a new process; with many confusing and conflicting bits of information as to what is supposed to be done when a previous person performs maintenance set forth in a work card later assigned to [another Mechanic]. In the near future; a Separate Check (SC) will be issued every time Oil Service is requested/required; and this situation may become more confusing and potentially cause more possible Non-Compliance issues like this one... First: I would suggest that Previously Accomplished (PA) be removed from the Procedures Manual XXXX.11.G. exclusion; as the requirement to cite WHERE the [Maintenance] action was accomplished [as noted] in Procedures Manual (PM) XXXX.10.A; should be usable through multiple sequential [Sign-off] blocks.Second: a thorough examination of the processes; that caused this error and other sources of confusion; be done and a structured process be implemented and explained to the work-force [Maintenance employees]; either via E-training and/or Shift-meetings.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports about a new and confusing sign-off process in their Procedures Manual (P/M) that does not allow a Mechanic; assigned a Periodic Service (P/S) Check Card; to sign-off multiple sequential tasks with the reference 'Previously Accomplished' (PA); after a previous Mechanic has already performed the same maintenance that is required in the assigned Task Cards.