elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Tower, TX
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Landing DFW 17L; FOD on rwy and we elected to execute a missed approach. At the start of the go-around we had 6;500 lbs of fuel. Vectored left turn; climb to 6;000; back around over the airport for a right downwind to RWY 13R. We asked for a closer runway and were denied. We mentioned that we were at min fuel (Yes; I know that is substantially meaningless verbiage) I checked fuel on final and we had 4;700 lbs but don't know our exact DME at the time.  Landed uneventfully and after a somewhat extended taxi in (holding short of 18R) parked with 3;900 lbs of fuel.I frankly do not know our exact fuel at touchdown but we may have burned into our reserve fuel (4;400 lbs or so). I was watching our fuel pretty closely but was suprised at the FOB as we parked the brake. We did not declare an emergency.As a precaution I would declare emergency fuel next time in a similar situation. A missed approach from 17L to 13R? That is about as far away as they could send us. It seems like ATC might be better aware of this type of thing. Yes; I  know they have their hands full with all the flights landing at the same time. I add fuel fairly frequently but may add more. I had not added fuel on this flight.


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


Synopsis: MD-83 flight crew reported they landed with minimum fuel after executing a missed approach because of FOD on the runway.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SAN.Tower, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: Tower SAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X had check on to Lindbergh tower's local control position and was operating in the San Diego Bravo airspace within 1 mile to 1 1/2 miles south of the final approach course. The position tag (S) dropped. Local controller noticed it; attempted to retag but it indicated 'dup ID'. SAN Local control had to retag Aircraft X using a different ID. When SAN LC check the call sign it indicated it was now being used by 2T. 2T is LAX Tower. Prior report was filed for the same occurrence and the practice of LAX Twr dropping SAN Tags to be used by them. It is inexcusable for any controller to think it is okay to remove someone else's flight plan. Ever! I was notified by the CPC that LAX was still doing this reckless behavior. LAX doing this with a carrier tag between LA Arrival and LAX Twr was the topic of a video in recurrent training. Why is it still occurring? I don't know how to be clearer. It has to stop!I recommend individual; face-to-face briefing on the proper etiquette of Air Traffic Control. How one should not remove flight plans that do not belong to that facility! The last response from LAX was that 'This conduct would no longer be condoned'. What?  When would it ever be condoned? SCT originates our LOAs. SCT could keep a master list of all call sign usage to alleviate dual use. We have tours that operate in the SAN Bravo. SCT San Diego area has sky diving. We were both attempting to use 'SKY' as an identifier when talking to our individual aircraft company's. We coordinated with each other to use different IDs; but those call signs used could be on a master list to let others know it isn't available.




Synopsis: SAN Tower Front Line Manager reported of duplicate aircraft identifications in the SAN and LAX Area.  Someone was attempting to use a call sign; saw that it was being used; but dropped the data tag anyways.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Tower, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on runway 16C in SEA; Tower advised us that traffic departing 16L was an early turn out and then said we were cleared for takeoff. Around 1400 feet MSL the aircraft prompted an immediate RA with no prior TA. The command was simple; reduce vertical speed. I was still hand flying so I was able to comply immediately and after about 5-10 secs the aircraft instructed us that we were clear. The flight was then continued without incident.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported complying with a TCAS RA on climb out from SEA RWY 16C after following traffic departing from RWY 16L.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [The A320] was a handoff from ZJX and by LOA should have had BAHAA HIBAC TRV. The A320 was BAHAA TRV and got within a mile of Sealord before he was pointed out. When I'm by myself never assume ZJX will give you every aircraft per LOA. Check every handoff flight plan. I [informed] ZJX of their error.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller reports a botched handoff from ZJX resulting in a late point out to military controllers at Sealord.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B727-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Engineer / Second Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About halfway on the flight we had a total loss of A Hydraulics System. The Elevator Low Pressure light came on and followed immediately by the Rudder Low Pressure. The Captain saw his lights on the front panel also. The A System Pressure gauge and quantity dropped to zero immediately. We ran the stabilizer followed by the QRH procedures for Hydraulic Leak or Loss and closed the fluid shutoff switches. We descended to FL280 for yaw damper limitations. I attempted several times to contact Dispatch using SATCOM without success. They somehow saw we were attempting them to call and contacted us. I was able to give the basic info before we lost SATCOM again. We had several short contacts with them before landing. Reaching our destination; I used the alternate flap system to deploy the flaps and leading edge devices and then manually cranked the gear. We declared an emergency with Approach and had an uneventful landing. Maintenance pinned the gear and we were towed to the ramp. All checklists and QRH procedures were accomplished as per Company SOP.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information]


Synopsis: B757 A Hydraulic system failed in flight. The QRH was completed; flight descended to FL280 for the Yaw Dampener restriction and; before landing; an emergency was declared.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was working solo with heavy traffic. Moderate turbulence was reported in the descent. Due to sector saturation I had difficulty remembering to issue the ride report to several aircraft; and some aircraft flew through the turbulence without a warning. Additionally; I noticed two aircraft at 3;500 feet in potential conflict; talking to one. It was too far away to call traffic; but by the time my scan returned to that area; the aircraft I wasn't talking too was directly on top of the one I was talking too; and had climbed 500 feet to avoid.This happened because the sector was saturated and I did not have help. We need more staff so we can staff D-sides (Radar Assist) and trackers as appropriate.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported work overload and forgetting to issue advisories due to lack of staffing.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: High Winds
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Elevator ControlSystem
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Road trip from ZZZ to ZZZ1 for Aircraft X. Found aircraft maintenance not documented by multiple mechanics. Multiple task found to be started; but not documented on [system]. Informed mechanics to document their Maintenance on [system]. Was updated by mechanics on was what was accomplished. No stories matched. Heavy wind throughout operation and possible hydraulic activation during cable tension adjustment. Documentation does not match maintenance performed. Cable tension was released without proper pins installed. Incorrect cables adjusted. Inspected aircraft and found multiple turnbuckles with broken turnbuckle clips. Cables now require replacement. Found multiple Broken turnbuckle safety clips in cabin of aircraft.Inspected aircraft and found multiple turnbuckles with broken turnbuckle clips. Incorrect control cable adjusted. Now two flight control system require confirmation of correct installation. Suspect possible third flight control system.Maintenance not documented; maintenance manual not followed. Upon realization of incorrect maintenance and documentation performed; contacted lead; supervisor; base manager for further guidance. Documented mistakes found.


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


Synopsis: Technician reported multiple failures of personnel to follow maintenance procedures during a flight control cable rigging; resulting in control cables requiring replacement on all three systems.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Mountain Wave
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During stable cruise; FL350; M.79; PF-FO; PM-CA; A/P and A/T engaged; clear skies; approaching clouds not associated with weather radar returns; approaching Continental Divide; 58NM NNW DEN; ISA +7; FMS OPT FL360; aircraft experienced a slow increase of IAS toward MMO. PF immediately disconnected A/T to control IAS. IAS continued to increase toward MMO. PF immediately disconnected A/P and slowly raised the nose of the aircraft to control IAS; MAX ALT 35250 MSL. MMO was exceeded by approximately 5-7KTS for 10 seconds. As IAS started to decrease away from MMO; PF lowered nose and recovered to FL350 engaging A/P and A/T; however; IAS continued to decrease quickly (MMO -40KTS); aircraft was now performance limited and unable to maintain altitude and airspeed. Thrust positioned at MAX CON; FMS IAS -1; IAS continued to struggle. PM notified DEN Center that the aircraft had encountered an 'atmospheric anomaly' and was unable to maintain altitude and airspeed and needed an immediate descent to recover. An immediate descent to FL340 was granted. PF was able to complete a stable recovery at FL340.Post event investigation by the PM using various sources revealed that the aircraft was flying over a 'valley area' where surface altitude gradients are particularly intense and seem not only able to produce orographic wind effects; but also intensify these effects due to a possible funnel effect caused by the valley while approaching the Continental Divide. In this area the surface altitude gradient increases more than 6000 MSL; (8280 MSL to 14255 MSL); over a span of 10NM. Surface winds; over the last 2+30 hours prior to this event averaged 27021G33.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported altitude and airspeed deviations resulted from a mountain wave encounter near DEN.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance

Narrative: While en route to RSW; our arrival was changed for weather from the TYNEE 2 to the SHFTY 5 Arrival. JAX Center cleared us direct INPIN and descend to FL 330. We were expecting JAX to descend us soon. The radios were quiet without much traffic. A few miles after INPIN we received a call on Guard frequency to contact JAX Center on XXX.XX. I checked in with 'JAX Center with (call sign).' JAX asked for my altitude and I replied 'FL 330.' He then cleared us direct to MOEMO and told [us] to descend to FL 240. We never received another call from JAX on XXX.XX. Then we received a call on Guard to contact JAX Center on the previous frequency.I first called JAX Center on XXX.XX with no response; then I called JAX Center on [the previous frequency]. The Controller was clearly agitated and chastised us that he'd been trying to contact us since INPIN. I told him we received a call on Guard to go to XXX.XX and told him that Controller gave us direct MOEMO and descend to FL 240. JAX handed us over to Approach and the rest of the flight was uneventful.I think the issues here are internal with JAX Center. Was the Controller listening to Guard? Did he hear the Guard call from another Controller for (other call sign) to contact JAX on XXX.XX? Should we establish a new procedure for pilots to try and contact ATC on their last assigned before contacting the new frequency assigned on Guard? I can't think of much we can do in the aircraft to prevent this. I'd certainly like to know what happened at JAX Center; external to our aircraft; during this event.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported receiving calls on Guard frequency to contact JAX Center on different frequencies; but the Controller who responded appeared to have no knowledge of the frequency changes.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately 1 hour before landing our purser made an announcement that; due to a malfunction of the entertainment system; all entertainment and power ports will be shut off; and remain off until gate arrival. Note: not unusual; we had issues with the Inflight Entertainment (IFE) at takeoff.I was informed by another crew member that there had been an electrical fire/smoke at a [first class] passenger seat; from the power port. [A passenger] said 'it was probably because 'that guy' had plugged too many things into the power port'I [did] not directly witness [the event]; nor did I know which seat was involved. There was no other indication that there was smoke in the cabin.




Synopsis: A B777 Flight Attendant reported the entertainment system being shut down in flight; reportedly in response to smoke and fire at a passenger's power port.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the RAVNN 6 Arrival into BWI; we were given a 'descend via' clearance. Passing 12;000 feet; the Controller told us to level off at 12;00 feet 'if able.' I responded that we were passing 12;000 feet right then and asked if we needed to climb back up to 12;000 feet. The Controller said; 'Disregard.' I queried the Controller to determine if we were still cleared to descend via the arrival; and he instructed us to descend and maintain 10;000 feet. Descending through approximately 10;500 feet; the Controller instructed us to turn 10 degrees left for traffic; which we did. Through about 10;300 feet; we received a TCAS RA 'don't descend.' We immediately disengaged the autopilot and leveled off at approximately 10;200 feet; and noticed on the Navigation Display that the conflicting traffic went directly under us at 10;000 feet.Had we not responded immediately and correctly to the RA; I firmly believe we would have collided with the traffic. I notified ATC that we were responding to the RA; and the Controller gave us instructions to proceed direct RAVNN and descend to 6;000 feet when able; with no further comment on; nor discussion of; the near mid-air collision or the RA. I heard one of our Company aircraft on the radio tell ATC that they also received a TCAS RA; which leads me to believe that they may have been our conflicting traffic. I think; as the flight crew; we handled the event very well. We had excellent communication and coordination; and the First Officer immediately applied corrective action to our flight path to avoid a collision. I think the Controller must have been task saturated due to the traffic volume; and perhaps lacked experience or knowledge to avoid this event. We continued the arrival and approach into BWI and landed without further incident.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported an NMAC on descent into BWI when an aircraft passed directly below them with 200 feet of vertical clearance.