elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: A five year old UM (Unaccompanied Minor) was roller skating during service. I discovered her in her skating gear and roller skates as I was completing my service at row 19. There was very mild turbulence. Passengers in rows 20-21 reported that she had fallen several times during flight and they had assisted her to the lavatory while in skates. Unbeknown to either of us flight crew; she had the roller skates in her backpack rather than a carry on. She took her seat as I pulled the cart back to the galley; and my other Flight Attendant kindly convinced her to return to her normal footwear. She assisted her with the removal of the roller skates. The passengers that assisted the UM during service were given complimentary beverages as a gesture of gratitude. There were many concerns as to why she was flying alone. It was very difficult getting her to understand the safety briefing; why she had to remain seated; and keeping her from getting off the plane without a gate agent. She was weighed down with a backpack including the roller skates; as well as a carry on. She tripped multiple times over her luggage on the ramp. She refused to allow anyone to touch her bags. She claimed that I pushed her as she fell over her roller bag in front of myself and the other Flight Attendant. A gate agent in Seattle guided her into the terminal. The UM clearly did not comprehend the safety concerns and ramifications of her actions. I recommend implementation of a safety comprehension assessment of UMs before ticketing for both guardians and UMs.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported an Unaccompanied Minor failed to understand and refused to comply with safety instructions; resulting in disruption of service.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: When I got to work at XA:50 local; I started checking my workload and the number of flights I was going to receive from the dispatchers I was relieving. I counted 25 flights in the air; that I was supposed to inherit; at least 17 of them were medium to long hauls; departing between XG:00z and arriving before XJ:30z. When I determined the workload I immediately sent the help message; around XB:00 local; and went to talk to the Chief Dispatcher and the Duty Director; and we discussed possible mitigation to the problem; because I was refusing to take the desk in those conditions. First; it was said that a unit coordinator position was going to be closed to alleviate the workload; but that never happened. Then a sector manager came down to my colleague; Dispatcher Y; and asked him if he could take some of my flights; when Dispatcher Y had 20 flights in the air. He declined; since his plate was full already. To me that is lack of situational awareness; as the sector manager are the ones in charge of the flight distribution. Then he continued asking around and a couple of my colleagues picked 2 flights each; so my workload went down to 19; since 2 of those were about to get to the gate; which is still over the company policy; but it was acceptable since there were no complications on the desk. Increase mid night desks and improve the flights distribution.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported having to work too many flights during shift.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: Y90.TRACON, CT
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower BAF
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: BAF Tower requested release for Aircraft X off Runway 20; my trainee issued a heading 240 degrees and released off runway 20. The pilots called airborne and were issued a climb to 10;000 feet prior to radar identification by the trainee. I observed the primary targets off the wrong direction; apparently departing Opposite Direction Operation (ODO) Runway 2. I overrode my trainee and issued a traffic alert to Aircraft X reference Aircraft Y who was VFR East of the field on vectors to CEF. Aircraft X reported the traffic in sight and that he was clear of them. I verified the number in flight as I was not near the flight progress strip and seeing the second aircraft in flight I issued a traffic alert to [the other aircraft in the flight] as well. The Aircraft X flight continued on without issue.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported that aircraft were supposed to depart in one direction; but ended up departing in the opposite direction.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Wheel
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: MEL; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: During preflight; I found an unusual wear pattern on the #3 main tire (RH inboard). I took a photograph of the wear; showed it to the CA; and we agreed that it would be prudent to call maintenance. Both the mechanic who answered the radio when I called it in as well as the mechanic who came out to inspect it both said it was a 'common problem' and 'known issue' with the MAX; specifically the #3 tire; and the mechanic who came to the airplane added that in his opinion it's really a landing gear design issue. Maintenance ultimately ended up issuing a deferral item for the tire; deferring replacement until later (but still flagging it for replacement).Guidance in the AOM on tire wear is unclear whether the plies are body plies or tread reinforcement plies. If they are body plies; maintenance managed to convince us to depart with an aircraft that; per the AOM guidance; had an unserviceable tire.Example photos or a more detailed diagram might provide more clarity. And while tires are expensive and the Max has indeed had a number of high-profile 'issues'; if a tire is unserviceable per our own guidance; it should be replaced; whether this is a 'known issue' or not.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 First Officer reported finding unusual wear on a main tire which maintenance deferred for a later replacement.  First Officer was informed that it was a known problem.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working arrivals doing ILS approaches. Aircraft X checked in on the downwind and declared minimum fuel. I verified the fuel status and advised the pilot to which runway to expect. I continued working through my other aircraft with an awareness that I needed to get Aircraft X in as soon as feasible. It was low IFR and with the parallel runway configuration aircraft were doing at least 20 mile finals. At the opportune time; I based Aircraft X at 9;000 ft. The aircraft took the turn and I then issued the full ILS clearance to the aircraft. The pilot read back the turn and clearance but not the altitude.As the aircraft approached the localizer; I observed Aircraft X at 8;000 ft. The next hit was below 8;000 ft and now below the MVA. I asked the pilot his altitude to which he did not respond and I tried to climb him but my transmissions were blocked no less than 3 times. The aircraft was now at 7;200 ft. The Low Altitude alert never went off; but I issued a low altitude alert to the pilot and climbed him to 9;000 ft. He read back the clearance but was very slow to climb the aircraft. However the aircraft did accelerate. Due to the fuel situation that the pilot advised me of; I chose not to break the aircraft off the approach but rather to ask if he was able to continue the approach. He replied in the affirmative. I reissued the clearance and reduced his speed. He was now overtaking the traffic in front of him; but I didn't have time to keep him on my frequency due to the altitude of the aircraft next to him. The aircraft climbed while on the localizer until reaching the step down altitude of 9;000 ft and then descended on the approach and landed without further incident.This may have been a pilot error due to the added stress of performing a minimum fuel landing in IFR conditions. I am glad I was able to be of assistance to the pilots.




Synopsis: D01 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended below the assigned altitude and below the MVA.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: clear; 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-226 TC Metro II
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff from Runway 17R; during climb and making a left turn assigned by Tower I felt a difference in directional control (yawing) to the left. After checking my gages and parameters I saw a solid oil pressure red light for the left engine; I recovered directional control; secured the engine; reported the problem to the Tower; received vectors for and landed on Runway 26 without incident.




Synopsis: When an SA226 lost oil pressure in the left engine the pilot secured it and returned safely to his departure airport.
Date: 201712
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The published LOC frequency for ILS 26L for LAS is incorrect. The plate says 111.50 but the actual frequency is 111.75. I received the correct morse for 111.75 and we flew a visual approach.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the charted 111.50 ILS frequency for LAS Runway 26L is an error and should read 111.75.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a busy arrival bank to RWY 35; the 4 miles behind a B757 was lost. The weather was VFR and because of a strong quartering tailwind the compression rate was high.  As CIC I was helping the Approach Controller when able to provide visual between arrivals with a high compression rate that would not affect safe landing. In the case of these two aircraft; the pilot had changed to Tower frequency early but did not immediately check on. The Radar Controller attempted to break out the B737 because of the potential loss of 4 miles but received no response. It was about this time I over heard the Local Controller transmitting with the B737 about visual separation and the B757.  The fact was that the Controller had them both in sight but the B737 did not yet see the B757. A heading for pull out was issued and coordinated with satellite radar. The separation went as low as 3.6 before the B737 turned to avoid wake.It's hard to determine an exact recommendation since everyone involved tried hard to make this work. The mitigating factors of the non-responsive pilot due to radio change and the quartering tailwind had a lot to do with this ops error. In hindsight an immediate break out by Local may have saved this from being an ops error but is not guaranteed. Because of the high quartering tailwind is was common for overtakes to reflect 40-90 knot overtakes until at lower altitudes inside the marker. An unfortunate event where everyone was aware and did their best to have a solution that didn't get the results needed for written requirements.




Synopsis: Tower Controller-in-Charge reported a wake turbulence separation operational error; B737 following a B757; due to several contributing factors.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAD.Tower, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working the Local 3 position as well as CIC (Controller in Charge). Aircraft X; on about a 1.5 mile final reported seeing a yellow drone east of the final at 900 ft. From there I began the process of reporting the unauthorized UAS Event first via a report. On my initial attempt to file the report; the page used to file the report was not working correctly. It only allowed me to select the type of report; but not the information regarding the event. I restarted the report and kept experiencing the same problem. At this point; I had 3 additional aircraft arriving. I issued each it's landing clearance as well as an advisory of the reported UAS. Those 3 arriving aircraft reported seeing no UAS in the vicinity of their respective final. I contacted the ROC (Command Center) regarding the reporting issue. With their help I was able to fill in information regarding the Unauthorized UAS Event. From there; I began to look for the checklist regarding Unauthorized UAS Events. I was unable to find the checklist at the CIC desk. I was able to find the UAS Binder; however I did not find the reporting checklist. I also checked the ACE-IDS under the checklist section and was not able to find the UAS checklist. I tried to recall from memory; my CIC training on what is supposed to be reported. Not being able to find the correct checklist led me to not report the event to the additional required parties. I now know that I still needed to report this event to the DEN [Domestic Event Network] and PCT; as well as broadcast the event on the IAD ATIS. In retrospect; I also think that I could have recalled another controller from the breakroom for assistance.I would suggest adding the UAS reporting Checklist to the Checklist Section of the ACE IDS. I would also add this checklist the UAS binder for quicker reference.




Synopsis: A Controller working Local Control Combined with Controller in Charge reported an aircraft reported sighting a drone in their airspace but was unable to find the appropriate checklists to report the incident according to the rules.
Date: 201307
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the VFR Aircraft X. He informed me that he wanted to take pictures flying north/south lines west of the field south of [Highway X.] [Highway X] is not depicted on our video maps; so I did a point out with NR because Aircraft X would be over the final at some point while flying around taking pictures. I verbally told NR that Aircraft X says that he will stay south of [Highway X]; but that the reason for the point out was because he will probably be over the final too. NR took the point out via automation. When Aircraft Y was descending for an approach I saw him 1 1/2 miles west of my traffic. I called the traffic to my VFR twin propeller and told him to continue northbound for traffic. My twin propeller was thru the final for Aircraft Y and he did have traffic in sight. I told Aircraft X to pass north of traffic and continue his own navigation. Recommendation; make sure that the other Controller issued the traffic if it looked questionable.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a NMAC declaration between an IFR arrival and a VFR aircraft on a photo mission. The reporter indicated ATC should have issued additional traffic information to the involved aircraft.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aerofoil Ice System
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: C208 Caravan TKS equipped. While enroute IFR; encountered unforecast trace [of] ice. TKS switch was in high mode. Pilot observed TKS fluid only flowing from the first two feet of wing and last two feet; no fluid flow on majority of both wings; aircraft had no ice protection with this TKS system. Dusty air seems to clog the wings and render system not operational. Very dangerous; and unreliable. TKS System should be investigated.




Synopsis: A C208 pilot reported that following exposure to dusty conditions when the TKS System was activated during icing conditions in flight the fluid flow on both wings was uneven or absent providing no protection.