elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X flight plan showed a filed route of OTHH./.SSM..TVC.PAITN2.ORD; but he was flying the SSM.PAITN2.KORD which took him left of course by about 20-30 miles. I questioned him on his filed routing and cleared him direct OBSTR.WYNDE5.ORD to clear up confusion.Get rid of the TVC transition. I personally have filed several reports on these pilot deviations regarding this arrival with two segments of an arrival starting at the same point; but continuing on different directions. I have had at least 8 pilot deviations regarding filing and flying different routes. Access my previous reports for more information; and a complied list of previous issues that were documented.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller describes route of a flight that has a transition that has two segments which causes confusion because the transitions go in different directions.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Conducting flight training at ZZZ. There was a near miss involving myself and another plane on final.Prior to the incident; radio traffic around ZZZ became distracting for both my student and I while we were practicing steep turns; so I turned the volume down to where I could still hear the other traffic; but could focus on my lesson.Conducting left traffic Runway XX; on the takeoff roll; I instructed my student to apply take off power; and climb out at 85 kts once gear was retracted and propeller set to 2500 RPM. We turned left crosswind 500 AGL; then left downwind for [Runway] XX. Proper radio calls were made on left crosswind and left downwind. Visually scanning the area; I did not see any other traffic. Midfield downwind landing gear was set to the down position; green gear light verified. Once abeam the numbers [Runway] 21; power was reduced to 2100 RPM; flaps 10 degrees; and 75 kts established. 45 degrees off our landing point; left base radio call was established; then left base was turned; and 20 degrees of flaps established. Final call and turn was made; 30 degrees flaps and a normal landing.Once parked and shut down; a gentleman walked briskly up to my plane and informed me that we had just turned final 'a quarter mile in front of him'. He also explained he heard my radio calls; and was responding. I had not heard him so I inspected my volume knob for com 1; finding it turned down too far to have heard him. I apologized sincerely; and will ensure that volume remains where I can hear other pilots at all times.




Synopsis: C172 flight Instructor reported an NMAC during approach to landing as a result of turning down the radio volume and not hearing an inbound aircraft's radio transmissions.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Syst Pressure/Temp Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout received a HYD QTY LOW R EICAS alert approximately FL140. Subsequently received a HYD PRESS PRI R and then a HYD PRESS SYS R alert and Caution. Complied with all checklist items. After discussion with Captain; [Operations] and [Maintenance Control] elected to continue to destination. Did not declare an Emergency however requested to have emergency equipment standing by to inspect landing gear for potential fire from remaining fluid dripping on brakes. Aircraft made a normal flaps 30 landing using speed derived from the QRH. Captain assumed PF (Pilot Flying) duties prior to landing and I became PM (Pilot Monitoring). Aircraft cleared the runway and stopped to complete the inspection by airport personnel. After completion taxied unassisted to assigned gate.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported experiencing an in-flight hydraulic system failure.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Light Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After FILPS Intersection we were given a heading of 150 and 4;000 feet for radar vectors; visual 27 SWF. We were in the vicinity of Gardiner PJA; just north of SWF; when I spotted the twin engine jump plane at our 11 o'clock high and one mile in a steep descent parallel to our course. A few minutes earlier we did hear jumpers away. ATC tried repeatedly to contact the jump plane when it suddenly dove to the right and rapidly towards us. I banked the plane hard right; 45 degrees; with a descent. We Simultaneously received a RA for the same. We leveled off at 3000 feet and did a visual landing at SWF. the Jump plane probably came within a few hundred yards of us; I could clearly see it up close passing under our belly to the rear. The Jump plane finally answered ATC and sounded a little excited. We briefed the pax after landing; they had no idea of the event as we are a smooth bunch up front. They were appreciative. All is well.ATC vectored us through the Gardiner Jump area which would have been fine if the Jump plane had been more attentive to the radio at the time. Maybe ATC should keep us out of there in the future? I know we'll be more attentive.




Synopsis: Captain reported an RA Alert while in descent for landing. Pilot took evasive action and landed safely.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: My maximum duty day was 13 hours and I was at 13.25. I said I could not complete the last leg.... The Scheduler said I can be extended by two hours. I said 'The Pilot in Command and the certificate holder may extend maximum flight duty periods specified in Tables B or C of this part to the extent necessary to safely land the aircraft at the next destination airport or alternate airport; as appropriate. 117.19.' I stated that I do not agree that this will be safe. The Scheduler told me that they will give me a 'note' in my attendance record.  This creates a negative work environment and is harassment at its best to get someone to break the 117 FAR. The company says that it is not an attendance issue. Then why put it in my attendance record? This is also used to take pay away from employees that do not agree to the extension. This is a very unsafe thing to do because I have seen where people will break the 117 rule just so they don't get this put in their attendance record or lose pay. This action by the company will cause someone to crash an airplane that should not have been put in this type of situation. These rules were to save lives while the company is pushing people to break them. This is just as bad as people being harassed about fatigue calls.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer contends that company policy regarding the two hour flight time extension under FAR 117.19 is incorrect and that pilots who do not comply are unfairly pressured to accept flights.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B777-200
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: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The preflight briefing indicated the right wing fuel tank gauge will be inoperative for the flight.  When we got to the airplane; the maintenance paperwork indicated everything had been fixed.  Two hours into the flight; the left wing tank showed a 20;000 LB imbalance with the right wing tank showing more fuel.  The 'fuel disagree' checklist popped up and we started to complete it.  Before completion; the total fuel indication disappeared along with the left wing fuel indications.  We now; only had a right wing fuel indication.  The 'Fuel Disagree' checklist was inadequate for this situation.  We then elected to do the 'Fuel Leak' checklist and found it also inadequate; without a total fuel reading.  The same was true for the 'Fuel Imbalance' checklist.  After contact with Dispatch and Maintenance; it was concluded that a fuel leak was possible; but could not be verified visually; or by checklist.  Without being sure the airplane was not leaking fuel; an immediate diversion was planned.  Under this situation; we found the 'Fuel Disagree;' 'Fuel Leak;' and the 'Fuel Imbalance' checklists; inadequate to determine with certainty; whether the airplane was leaking fuel; or if the fuel sensors were the problem.  Making the wrong assumption could lead to a serious problem.




Synopsis: B777 Captain experiences a left fuel tank quantity indication failure in cruise; which also causes the failure of the total fuel indication.  A fuel imbalance indication had briefly annunciated before the quantity failure and without any method to determine if a fuel leak existed the crew elects to divert.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Overhead Bins; Latches
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While walking back to do my walk-around; I hit the front right luggage bin with my eye; causing a cut; minor bleeding; and a black eye. The front bin when open is below eye level and only leaves approximately 1 foot of isle width. Two different Flight Attendants also hit their heads on bins prior to them closing; and one hit her head after landing. I was also informed that multiple passengers complain about hitting their heads on this aircraft.




Synopsis: B787 First Officer reported that the design of the cabin overhead bins resulted in an injury.
Date: 201907
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After having a late lunch I arrived back at the [the] gate; but before I arrived there I could smell the fuel a couple of gates away. As I approached I could see what looked like a large fuel spill and the fueling company employees cleaning it up. After getting to the gate I could see it was a very large spill; but no fire department standing by. I asked a couple of safety advocates what happened and they said [Company] had a fuel spill; but protocol wasn't being followed. First no again the fire department wasn't call for such a large spill; traffic was being allowed to drive through the area including a Manager in a company vehicle; the [Company] guys working the spill weren't wearing respiratory protection as they swept and scooped up the used absorbent; because of construction a breezeway is now being used by other airlines and companies to get to other areas of the airport.I told the Supervisor there that the breezeway needed to be closed but got no response from the Supervisor who in fact was ignoring me the Safety Rep on the advice I was trying to convey to him about the situation. When I said to him have the food truck back out his response was I'm trying to get them into the gate next door that was full of working Rampers working the inbound portion of the flight; is on time that important? The fire department was called after the fact and that the [Company] guys were finishing up the clean up; so they stayed on scene for about five minutes and then left. I feel that if [Company] didn't call the fire department then the [Airline] Supervisor should have; safety is number one right (joke) does he not know that the safety of the aircraft and passengers on the aircraft is his responsibility; I guess not. I left the scene because it was time for me to get off work and file.I could taste the absorbent and I am sure the crew next door could as well and I am sorry I didn't go over and ask them how they were feeling. As for myself by the time I got to my punch out area I could still taste the chemicals in my mouth and had a headache that is just starting to subside.




Synopsis: Commercial Airline ground personnel reported observing multiple cleanup protocol violations dealing with large fuel spill.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Other unknown
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Island between taxiway A and ramp between spots X and Y is bordered only by sporadic small blue reflective stakes. At night they are extremely difficult to see because taxiing into the ramp via B-L-A-spot X the aircraft lights do not hit them at the right angle. On multiple occasions I've had to alert the Captain who could not see the island or blue stakes so as not to continue in the same direction from L into spot Y; the aircraft must turn a quick left-right from taxiway L in order to avoid the island.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported this non movement area near Taxiway A is difficult to see at night. Reporter did not provide the airport.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TME.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D TME
ATC / advisory: Tower TME
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On final approach for landing on Runway 18 at TME; aircraft switched to Tower frequency. Tower advised crew to call a five mile final to Runway 18. Approaching the five mile call; crew noticed Aircraft Y coming from the right to left directly in front of crewed aircraft. Crew was getting ready to call the five mile distance; but instead crew executed an immediate left turn to avoid a collision and notified the tower of the situation. Crew continued left turn per tower instructions and climbed to 2;000 feet. Crew was advised to fly back towards the runway at 2;000 feet and contact Departure Control. Departure Control gave crewed aircraft vectors for right downwind and crew conducted an uneventful landing at TME. Crew was advised by tower personnel on the ground that there is no radar at the field and they depend on position reports. Crew was approaching the five mile call when they noticed Aircraft Y cut in front of the crewed aircraft. Crew asked the tower personnel if the Tower knew the aircraft was inbound then why did they not inquire the position of our aircraft before they turned Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported taking evasive action while on visual approach in order to avoid another aircraft during final approach to TME airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: CLT approach was vectoring us for ILS 18L. Our last assigned heading was 270; ALT 3000. We noticed a few traffic symbols in front of us on TCAS; thinking they were going to 18C and 18R. One was 300 below us. About 1.5 miles from the LOC; ATC issued an immediate turn left heading 190 and intercept the LOC to 18L for traffic at 1 o'clock; 1 mile and 300 feet below us. As I started the turn the TCAS came on telling us to 'climb; climb'. After turning off autopilot and flight directors and started climbing the TCAS announced 'Clear of conflict'. We climbed 100 feet. So we descended to 3000 and were cleared to fly the approach; after advising ATC about the TCAS RA.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a TCAS RA on final into CLT. Pilot responded to the RA by climbing 100 feet. The resolution cleared and the aircraft landed on the assigned runway. Traffic was for a parallel runway.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Aeroplane Flight Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Had a flight control issue on the way to ZZZZ1. [Notified ATC] and returned to ZZZZ.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported an undisclosed flight control issue resulted in a return to the departure airport.