elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After wearing a mask for several hours; I get severe headaches.  I believe in washing my hands and not touching my face.  Wearing a mask and watching others; everyone touches their faces more than ever before.  How is this healthy?  It is just like the CDC stated in March that we should not be wearing masks because we would touch our faces too much and stuff (germs) would be on masks.  It is so unhealthy for a healthy person to wear a mask.  It drops off our nose and anxiety sets in because if someone sees and takes a picture; airline may fire us.  Then I touch my face to move it back up.  Not to mention; I have to change masks at least 10 times due to talking/shouting because no one can hear me and my mask is wet.  I also feel uncomfortable not knowing who my flying partners are and especially my cockpit crew; as I cannot see their face.  This is an obvious security issue. Airline needs to accommodate those who cannot wear; especially the disabled.  The CDC even states that wearing a mask during the fires in California wouldn't help because the particles are too small and would get through.  Guess what?  Corona particles are even smaller; so therefore we are being lied to about masks; they will get through obviously as well.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported several concerns with having to wear a face mask.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was descending Aircraft X AND Aircraft Y as per LOA with L30. Nellis pointed out the Aircraft Z and Aircraft W as VFR. I questioned whether or not their aircraft would be going through my arrivals and they questioned it with; 'Don't you know where FYTTR is?'. I should have referenced my two aircraft but I already know that it would be for nothing. Aircraft Z and Aircraft W are in a flight status that basically ignores all commands by the controllers working at Nellis. So I stopped my traffic and had to apreq to L30 my aircraft violating LOA. There have already been numerous requests and an airspace change to avoid military aircraft cutting through the arrival aircraft in this area and nothing is changing significantly for the long run.




Synopsis: ZLA controller describes a situation that is ongoing where VFR aircraft worked by another facility are going through arrival aircraft flight path.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Other unknown
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was being used for tailwheel instruction.  Taxi was being performed.  Upon turning on taxiway; brakes were applied in an attempt to maintain directional control; there was insufficient braking to maintain direction or stop the airplane.  This resulted in striking small sign with prop after engine was stopped.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that during a student taxi lesson in a tail wheel aircraft; directional control was lost and the aircraft made contact with a taxiway sign.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot not flying; Captain was pilot flying. We were originally cleared to MCO via the PIGLT4 RNAV STAR; direct [to] OCF [thence via the OCF] transition. Shortly thereafter; we were re-cleared direct OTK and remainder of PIGLT 4 arrival. After about 2-3 minutes; the Controller inquired if we were direct to OTK. Initially I replied we were but after review of our course; it did not quite make sense. The Captain reprogrammed direct to OTK which required a 15-20 degree heading change and resulted with OTK as the only active waypoint. We had followed the normal verification process before the original execution; however; somehow the selection of several abeam points between our present position and OTK resulted in a course error that went unnoticed.Sometimes the selection of abeam points are so close together; it can cloud the actual 'cleared to' fix. A more thorough and careful review and verification on my part is essential!


Second narrative: Next time I would expand the map to a larger scale to verify the new course change in addition to checking the course in our normal procedures.


Synopsis: When ATC changed their clearance from direct to OCF; cleared for the PIGLT RNAV STAR to cleared to OTK for the STAR the flight crew of a B737-800 failed to confirm their reprogramming of the FMC and a track deviation; caught by ATC; resulted.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Boeing Company Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We arrived at the aircraft and were informed that on the inbound segment a passenger had lost a cellphone and it was behind a panel in the cabin. Maintenance in ZZZ was planning to defer this and send us back to the mainland with the phone lodged in whatever location it was in. After a brief discussion the Captain and I both felt this was unacceptable due to the risks posed for a Li-ion battery fire. We could not ensure the phone and battery would be safe from damage where it was and if it caught fire might be impossible to extinguish or retrieve to put in the fire bag as provided. All of this was magnified by the fact that we'd be close to 3 hours from any suitable airport should this occur at the critical point. We insisted the phone be located and retrieved before departing on the ETOPS segment. To me it seemed counter intuitive to having all this training on Portable Electronic Device (PED) fires; providing us with gloves and bags to store devices should they catch fire; but insisting that we launch across the water with no nearby diversion alternates with a PED that could not be retrieved or dealt with should the worst case occur. Maintenance ultimately found the phone and we departed.




Synopsis: First Officer reported  a passengers' cell phone became lost in cabin on inbound flight creating a potential fire hazard. Maintenance ultimately retrieved prior to departure.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in cruise with the autopilot on we were asked if we had the new STAR into COS. We did and ATC told us to expect that soon. We were given a pilots discretion descent from FL340 to FL270. I had not begun my descent. I started briefing the arrival and descent planning. In the middle of this we were cleared direct OZZZY which is on the STAR and that at FL270 to descend via the arrival. We were over LAA when cleared. I selected HDG on the FGCP while I loaded the arrival in the FMS. We were heading 310. I correctly loaded the arrival in the FMS and selected direct to OZZZY. The track to OZZZY was 300. I failed to select LNAV on the FGCP so the aircraft remained on the last heading. I continued with my arrival briefing and about the time I was finished briefing ATC asked if we were direct OZZZY. Realizing what happened we told them we were now turning direct OZZZY. ATC told us to turn to heading 290 immediately for traffic. He also told another aircraft to turn to a heading because of us. When I looked at the TCAS it was set to 20 mile range and I could see an aircraft but it was between 10-20 miles away and only blue in color. Shortly after ATC instructed us to proceed direct OZZZY which we did. The flight ended without further incident. The threat was present when we were given and accepted a new route. ATC asked if we had the new STAR which we did and so he cleared us via that. We anticipated and started briefing the entire procedure but only ended up being cleared to OZZZY and one waypoint after that remained on the arrival. The error present was the lack of verifying the aircraft was navigating according to the new flight plan. I selected HDG while I loaded the new route but did not select NAV after the route was loaded. I verbalized the new route and what to expect for the arrival but I failed to verify the airplane was navigating and the Captain failed to cross check after confirming the new route that we were in fact navigating on that route.




Synopsis: EMB145 First Officer reports a track deviation after being cleared direct to a fix and entering it into the FMC but failing to select NAV on the FGCP. ATC detects the error and issues headings to the reporter and another aircraft to avoid conflict.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZID; Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was being worked by me eastbound and checked on VFR. The controller told me (next to me) verbally he was climbing from 16;500 feet to 17;500 feet VFR. I amended the altitude and then when he checked on I told him about precipitation intensities to the SE and asked about the tops. I made a point out to Sector 31 a little bit later and she said 'What is that guy doing?' I commented about CMH approach running the departures too far West and she said; 'No the VFR Aircraft X'.  I hung up and went immediately to the aircraft to verify mode C as I saw 18;700 feet. He verified the altitude and I told him that you cannot be in the PCA above FL180. He stated that he needed an IFR clearance for this part of the flight and I gave him a clearance to maintain FL190. Later when I switched Aircraft X I advised him that he got the attention of two fellow controllers that were watching him on their boundary and my Supervisor and told him he can't do that anymore. I think he knew better and indicated such.Alert the pilot of non-compliance should be sufficient.




Synopsis: ZID controller was working a VFR aircraft at 17;500 feet. While coordinating with a neighboring sector; another Controller inquired about the VFR aircraft which was now observed to be at 18;700 feet in the PCA. Reporter then advised the VFR aircraft that they cannot be in the PCA and issued a subsequent clearance.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWG.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DJI Undifferentiated
Operator: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Operating under: Part 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E BWG
Reporter organization: Commercial Operator (UAS)
Reporter function: Person Manipulating Controls (UAS)
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Remote Pilot (UAS)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other post-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was performing an inspection of a property and flew my drone without checking the airspace. Management discovered the incursion during monthly flight reviews; we discussed that we must check airspace before every flight.

Callback: Reporter indicated they saw another UAS pilot flying which made them believe it was okay to fly at the location. After further review reporter learned the depicted airspace has Class E airspace which starts at the surface.



Synopsis: Part 107 pilot reported they were informed that they flew into controlled airspace and had not checked airspace before the flight.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Sierra 24
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to land by Tower on Runway 20. Student handling aircraft controls; rounded out too high owing to visual illusion from 'wider than usual runway'. Instructor added forward pressure to elevator control on two occasions; once on short final and once again during flare to minimize sink rate. Instructor failed to add power - initial approach had been too high so power had been reduced to idle. [We had a] hard landing on main wheels followed by 'normal' roll out for around 1;000 FT to exit on Taxiway C. On clearing the active runway with minimal braking and just prior to performing 'after landing procedures'; nose wheel collapsed causing a prop strike; ground speed almost zero. Aircraft engine secured; especially fuel. No injuries to either occupant. Ground Control advised. Aircraft recovered by local FBO and towed to apron.




Synopsis: Technam Sierra Instructor pilot describes a hard night landing that results in nose gear collapse as the aircraft is taxied off the runway.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We have received a [Dangerous Good] (DG) which was under 80% full and had no straps. There was DG in the [cargo bay] which was not secured. The tag was a DG tag with no DG remarks.




Synopsis: Air carrier ground personnel reported Hazmat transport violations on arrival shipment.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Interphone System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other On  Landing
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I started my shift and I was assigned to an A319 aircraft. I proceeded to continue the Trouble Shooting Manual (TSM) Task 77-00-00-810; and the non-routine write-up. The TSM and non-routine write-up discrepancy was completed. No faults found. I informed my Lead Mechanic that the task was completed. Maintenance Control requested that I check the chip detector; and the scavenge screen; no particle found. Later; I was informed that Maintenance Control was requesting to change out the Turbine Rear Frame Bearing Vibration Sensor. After lunch I started installation of the Turbine Rear Frame Vibration Sensor and completing the installation at XA:15 am. I used A320 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 77-31-30-000 and 77-31-30-400. Completed Task Card 77-31-30-400 up to Step: 9 (Close-UP). Before moving aircraft out the hangar; one of the Mechanic's needed [help] to complete his job; the job was to replace the Call Horn; which was on MEL. At XA:45 am; I started on the paperwork for aircraft. At that time the Manager was requesting for the logbook; the paper was not completed; the [Maintenance] Ready Room was busy; because of shift turnover; weather was at red status and heavy rain; and Manager was requesting that aircraft be taken to gate 'now'. By this time my Lead informs me that he was leaving in fifteen minutes with two minutes to go. All the paperwork was in disarray and missing. With all the confusion and break down in commutation; the final task was not performed as require on task card.Prior to my shift starting; my Lead informed me that the aircraft I worked on that morning; had a problem with Number One Engine Thrust Reverser; did not deploy. [Contributing Factors were] time; stress; confusion; weather; communication. Once I was informed; I contacted our Union Safety Committee. Management needs to communicate with the Lead not the Mechanic; to keep stress level down.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) describes how time; stress; confusion; weather conditions and lack of adequate communications contributed to an A319 aircraft thrust reverser on the Number One Engine not deploying upon landing.