elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Equipped with Garmin GTN750/GDL-88 with full ADS-B in/out capability. The Traffic Information Service (TIS)/ Flight Information Service (FIS) status flags both showed the system functioning with full capability. The weather page of the 750 showed TAFs/METARs/Winds etc and the Last Update status field said 'less than 5m'. I was using Seattle Avionics' FlyQ software on my iPad. It was updating via cellular modem but did not have a connection to a non-certificated ADS-B capability. VFR northbound on V25 [at] 8;500 feet enroute LTJ VOR then west through the Columbia George then north home to BFI. Clear flight conditions with lots of smoke at lower altitudes due to many forest fires. In contact with Seattle Center for flight following.'[Aircraft X]; Seattle Center; will you be going around or above the TFR North of Madras.''Center; what TFR; there's no TFR on my FIS-B.''[Aircraft X]; Center; yes there is a TFR. Please advise...'I opened my iPad and the TFR was on my FlyQ. Imagine my surprise. I went to the GTN750 map page and scanned around and other current TFRs were visible but not this one. I checked the FIS status and it was still 'less than 5 min.' Using the FlyQ moving map; I navigated around the TFR.Continuing northbound near LTJ the same thing happened with another TFR. It was present on my iPad but NOT on the Garmin; yet other TFRs were present on the Garmin. The FIS Last Update still said '< 5min'.I spoke with the local FSDO this morning and they couldn't explain it.




Synopsis: A pilot with sophisticated navigational equipment was surprised to be advised of a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) by ATC. For unknown reasons; it was not depicted on his primary GPS/Multifunction display.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While at cruise at FL410 we lost the right generator. I pulled out the QRH and began running the generator failure checklist. When we got the generator to reset; we had a CUR Limiter [current limiter] light and a Mach Trim light. We had initially declared an emergency but when we were able to reset the generator; we requested a diversion to a nearby airport for a precautionary landing. Approximately 40 miles out we received an ELEC amber message. At that point we were on Battery power and declared an emergency. When we landed; the right engine was turned off first and we had power. When the left was shut down; we lost all ship's power.




Synopsis: A Learjet crew diverted to a nearby airport utilizing battery power only when they suffered an otherwise complete loss of electrical power.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: There was a rapidly closing gap between two large areas of precipitation on the east and west sides of my sector. Aircraft X called and asked for 35;000 FT. I told Aircraft X that there was traffic off the left wing and to their 12 o'clock; both deviating through the same weather that Aircraft X was in. Aircraft X reiterated that they needed lower and I called traffic on the 737 at their 12 o'clock; asking them to wait two minutes. They then said that they had to descend now; and I told them that I could not authorize a descent. Aircraft X then descended to 35;000 FT; and Conflict Alert went off. I asked Aircraft X if they were declaring an emergency; and they said yes. I asked them if they could hold at 35;000 FT; because I didn't know why they were descending and there was additional traffic ahead at 27;000 FT. I then handed off Aircraft X and switched them to the Wilmington-35 controller's frequency. The pilot made a decision based on factors that they didn't share with me; and I told them repeatedly that I could not authorize their descent.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described a loss of separation event when traffic descended without clearance during multiple weather deviations.
Date: 202010
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passenger refused to comply with mask policy. Flight attendants requested compliance numerous occasions by making announcements and directly communicating with the passenger. The customer continued to ignore flight attendant requests. I personally asked for compliance and so did the other FA working the aft cabin. The passenger was angry with the flight attendants and stated we singled him out. This is a setup for failure and flight attendants are going to get hurt as a result. The mask policy needs to be reassessed and other policies need to be implemented to protect the flight attendants from situations like this one. At one point the passenger was fast asleep with the mask off. The passenger was outwardly defiant and had no intentions of complying with anything we asked. I am not here to be mask police we are safety professionals. The company has to come up with a better policy to protect us. This is creating a hostile work environment because I am fearful that the passenger could retaliate with physical violence. This was a horrible experience.




Synopsis: Captain reported a passenger was non-compliant about wearing a mask.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Fluid
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in cruise on our filed route. The Master Caution light came on and I told the Captain to identify the problem. It was a Number 1 HYD ISO VLV light. We both looked down at the Hydraulic panel and noticed the Number 1 Hydraulic Quantity gauge was showing approximately 1. I asked him to pull out the checklist and run the Number 1 Hydraulic system failure checklist. We determined that we had no quantity and no pressure. We ran the checklist. I continued to fly the airplane and run the radios while the Captain went off to call Dispatch on the SatCom. After talking to Dispatch; it was decided that we were not going to continue to our destination; but instead were going to divert where they had a 10;001 ft runway where we could safely land without flaps and normal brakes that were lost with the hydraulic system failure. I continued to fly the aircraft and [notified ATC]; telling them our souls on board; amount of fuel on board; the nature of our [situation]; and that we wanted direct to the airport and [assistance] standing by. The Captain was still off the radio and called the Flight Attendant and notified the passengers of our situation. Center started us on a slow decent out of 16;000 ft and I pulled back the power to stay under 200 kts as is required by some of the new caution lights that began to appear on the caution panel (Rudder Full Press). Captain came back after briefing the flight attendant and passengers and we transferred flight controls to him. We ran through the checklist a second time to make sure everything was done correctly and we were fully aware of all the systems we had lost due to the failure. We discussed the flapless landing and the new Ref and approach speeds that were required by the situation. We landed at 127 kts and Captain put the plane into full reverse to stop it. He put the Parking Brake on and we had vehicles enter the runway and check us for fire or damage; nothing was noted by them.Master Caution light illuminated and Number 1 HYD ISO VLV light illuminated on the Caution Panel. Alerted us to look down to the Hydraulic Panel. Number 1 Hydraulic System Failure due to loss of hydraulic fluid. Maintenance personnel would know exact cause.




Synopsis: During flight; in a De Havilland DHC-8-102; Number 1 Hydraulic System Failed due to loss of hydraulic fluid.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight briefing we were focused on the departure routing. The PDC; FMC; and departure plate all list different fixes. The FMC fixes are on the route; however; they're not listed on the departure plate. The fixes are on a V-airway or J-route. We both had the departure plate zoomed in on the Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) to verify the routing. We failed to note the 280 above 10;000 feet speed note on the departure. Cleveland Center queried our speed assignment when we checked-on with them from Departure Control.Make sure to review the entire plate. The fixes on the departure in the FMC can / should be fixed.


Second narrative: While briefing/reviewing PALACE EIGHT Departure both Crew Members missed the speed restriction above 10;000 feet (maintain 280 knots). With VNAV selected this resulted in a speed exceeding 280 knots.Departure depiction was a bit confusing displaying LESSY (V45) at the approximate location where PF FMC review showed ALPHE to be (J70). Review of PALACE; high charts and FMC resolved apparent discrepancy. Unfortunately; we missed the 280 knot restriction in the upper right corner of the Approach plate. A better review of the SID plate would have prevented this. Normally I fully review all plates before commencing the Captain brief; however; numerous interruptions and being pressed for time prevented this. I also feel that the PF briefing from the FMC with the PM following along on the SID/approach plate contributed to this error. If I had been briefing from the SID Plate; with the PM following on the FMC; I would most likely have caught the restriction.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported exceeding published speed departing DTW.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: VFR weather at ZZZ. Asked Approach for the GPS XX for practice. [They] cleared us for the approach. Leveled off at 3000 ft at ZZZZ. Captain armed the VNAV (Vertical Navigation) and I set MDA (Minimum Descent Altitude). I was distracted by trying to locate VFR traffic in the pattern at ZZZ. Aircraft descended below final approach fix altitude 2300 ft at ZZZZZ1. I believe we were at about 1800 ft. We got a terrain alert and Captain immediately turned off auto pilot and climbed to a safe altitude and leveled off. We were VFR at the time runway in sight and continued to land and captured the VASI. Cancelled IFR with Approach prior to landing. I needed to pay more attention to the approach altitudes and automation modes. Pay less attention to traffic.


Second narrative: ZZZ was VFR and I requested a RNAV GPS XX for practice. I used CDFA (Continuous Descent Final Approach) procedures; which we briefed. At 3000 ft; armed VNAV and set DDA (Derived Decision Altitude) to 1090 ft. Set AAD (Assigned Altitude Deviation) to 1100 ft. FO (First Officer) was talking to ZZZ traffic and Approach and I got distracted with my iPad which I had accidentally put on freeze on airport page. We got 'Terrain; Terrain' warning and I noticed we were at about 1700 ft and descending. I added power and climbed up to the slope. Landed plane normally.Not to let guard down in visual conditions and fly the plane. Watch out for distractions. Cross check instruments and not rely on automation completely.


Synopsis: Light transport aircraft flight crew reported receiving a terrain warning due to an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VNC.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Fatigue; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Fatigue-final landing after 11 hours of flying. Unable to activate runway lights. Assumed lights were defective. Turned off iPad with synthetic vision due to brightness. Began approach to Runway 5 with VFR guidance from GPS. Focused on 2 bright white lights which were from a golf practice range next to Runway 5 and I thought that they were VASI lights. Golf range had 60 ft. poles with netting to trap golf balls. None of the poles had a red light. Passing through 100 ft. turned right to land on Runway 5. Discovered on taxiing that I had 120.72 instead of 122.72 tuned in to activate the lights.




Synopsis: M-20 pilot reported fatigue contributing to distraction and using the incorrect frequency.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working 3 planes on an arrival finals sector. Two pilots were answering every third transmission. After trying to descend Aircraft X for the third or fourth time without a response I said 'Hello; Aircraft X descend and maintain 6000.' Aircraft X responded to that call. Then later down the final approach course it took 3 transmissions to slow the aircraft down. I told Aircraft X that it took three transmissions and he said he only heard one transmission. This comment led me to try other aircraft and when they did not respond to try the 'orange jack'; a hand set; and mains and standbys. Finally we figured out that the frequency was failing and subsequently failed. Aircraft X had to go around.Later it became knowledge that the frequency had been going in and out and since then Tech Ops keeps saying that the frequency is fixed and to use it. The frequency will work for a while and then fail again. Please send my apology to the Aircraft X crew for being 'obnoxious' as the pilot [of another aircraft] told me on frequency. I thought they were not paying attention and it ended up being my frequency failing. The frequency should not be used again until it can be verified fixed.

Callback: The reporter reported this is a known issue and in the meantime a substitute frequency is available for use.



Synopsis: NCT Approach Controller reported their frequency was working intermittently even though the Tech Ops personnel reported the frequency had been fixed.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Revised company procedures require us to use a new steeper climb profile. If flying an RNAV departure the autopilot should be engaged at 500 feet as per our manual. We did exactly that. Just above FRA the pusher activated and the autopilot disengaged. At FRA I selected FLC for a brief moment to gain some speed; but then I followed the company climb profile for the DEN RNAV departures; and selected VS/1000 fpm. Just 2 seconds later the plane stalled. In Denver with our new steeper climb profile it's normal to constantly see the PLI [Pitch Limit Indicator] in a calm wind day. So at the middle of the summer I'm pretty sure I wasn't the fist one who had the stick pusher activated following company procedures.The largest threat in this case is our company issued climb procedure combined with summer thermals.To prevent this from happening again I could disregard company procedures; could make a shallower climb; and engage the autopilot over 200K. If I missed something; please let me know.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain advised his company's revised vertical navigation SOP to provide greater climb angles to comply with altitude restrictions on RNAV SIDs from DEN exceed the aircraft's performance capability and resulted in a stall.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVP.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Dispatcher had accidentally selected improper toggle switches on computer creating a Dispatch Release without valid landing data on the release. The Dispatcher had selected inoperative nose wheel steering and contaminated runway conditions; both of which did not exist. During the enroute phase; I attempted to acquire landing data for our arrival and received an error message on ACARS indicating that no landing data could be created due to nose wheel steering inop on with a contaminated runway. We were confused because the nose wheel steering was not inop and the runway was not contaminated. The Captain contacted Dispatch via ACARS and received an amended release with the improper toggles removed. We received the proper landing data and landed without incident. The Captain talked to the Dispatcher on the ground at the gate and the Dispatcher advised filing an ASAP. In the future I will be diligent to back up the Captain by reviewing all aspects of the release even when I am the Pilot Monitoring for the flight.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported inaccurate landing data was received from Dispatch.