elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were departing TEB Runway 24 via the RUUDY 4. Shortly after take-off the Tower asked why we turned left (we didn't) and what was our departure instruction. I answered the RUUDY 4 and he said 'that's not the RUUDY 4; turn right 280 and call Departure'. I called Departure and nothing more was mentioned although I was instructed to level off at 1;500 FT. I'm not sure what happened other than the crosswind from the right may have blown us toward the 260 course. We would have intercepted as part of the procedure entered into our GPS. It looked to me like we departed and were maintaining 240 heading.




Synopsis: A light twin aircraft on the TEB RUUDY 4 SID was blown off track by a right cross wind; the Tower commanded a 280 heading which confused the crew who thought they were flying correctly.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: My crew had started the mission via ground ambulance. I accepted the flight and needed to put on fuel prior to departing for the mission so I would have enough fuel to complete the mission. Prior to this I had [the aircraft] topped off for the flight back to base. Once landing at base; the aircraft did not fly again until Friday night when I accepted this mission. Upon accepting the mission I repositioned to the fuel farm to put on fuel. At this time I put on 51 Gallons Jet A fuel and then departed.Just over halfway into the flight I got a Master Caution indicating a Fuel Quantity Degrade and the Main fuel Tank was fluctuating by 50 to 100 KG's. At this point in the flight I was the closest to the hospital and continued to land there. When I went to turn final I received another Master Caution light indicating that I had a Fuel Quantity Failure on the Main tank and proceeded to land.Upon landing I called the on duty Mechanic and pulled out the MEL book to see if we could MEL it. The mechanic then called his supervisor and was given the go ahead to MEL the aircraft. The plan was for me to drop the patient off and then stop to top off fuel and then fly to ZZZ to have the aircraft fixed. On the patient flight my number 2 supply tank went offline about 5 min from the pad. Just before landing the number 1 supply tank indication also went away. I landed and dropped the patient and then flew to the fuel stop and landed. Called the Mechanic and told him what happened and then they decided to come to check the aircraft. While draining the fuel from the aircraft found water and other large debris in the fuel. The fuel was also cloudy and very brown in color.




Synopsis: Helicopter Captain reported fuel quantity failures on a multi-leg patient flight which was later determined by Maintenance to be caused by contaminated fuel.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout at 28;000 feet to 30;000 feet MSL had a loud harmonic vibration at mid-cabin.  Diverted to ZZZ.




Synopsis: A B737-300 climbing at FL280 to FL300 developed a loud harmonic vibration at mid-cabin so the crew diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working LCC in a North operation. I had the straight out automatic releases while Local Control West had the turn automatic releases. I had the strip for Flight ABCD on the NSIGN departure (Straight Out). Without scanning the ASDE-X initially; I told Flight ABCD to Line Up and Wait (LUAW). When the aircraft responded and started to move; I was looking at the ASDE-X and noticed in the tag that it said PBO which would indicate he was on the PECOP departure (TURN) and that the call sign didn't match it was Flight AGCD. I asked the pilot which he was and he replied Flight AGCD. I went over to Ground Control; got the correct strip; got a release from LCW for the turn departure and cleared the aircraft for take off. The Ground Controller reported to me that the aircraft in question had been calling himself and answering to Flight ABCD. It should be noted also that there was a Flight ABCG. All of these aircraft ended up leaving within minutes of each other. Recommendation; Airline Company may want to consider looking through their call signs and changing those that are similar or at least those that are similar and are scheduled to depart close together.




Synopsis: SLC Controller expressed concern regarding the similar sounding flight numbers that led to confusion with regard to aircraft identity.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had been working Final for about 10 minutes when the Feeder stacked a B777 at 8;000 FT over the VOR for noise abatement. Instead of vectoring out an A320 from the south he stacked the A320 at 9;000 FT. This situation is unsafe due to the proximity to the final. It's to close and both aircraft have a hard time achieving a stable approach. An E120 coming in from the south was 6-7 miles south of the A320. I issued traffic to the E120 and he reported the E120 in sight. I told him to maintain visual separation and he acknowledge it. I got busy making side by's with other aircraft and didn't notice the overtake with the A320's side by aircraft. I can't remember the call sign; but issued traffic to the E120 and he said he was looking. I continued making side by's with other aircraft. I went back to the E120 and its transmission was blocked. He reported the other aircraft in sight and I told him to maintain visual separation. By that time I believe I had less than approved separation. Later [the Feeder] had [the A320] coming over [another] VOR to land on Runway 28L showing 325 [KTS] over the ground. I asked him his airspeed and he replied 250 KTS. It's standard to have aircraft coming over [the other] VOR at 210 KTS or less. It makes it very hard to slow them down and have them [at] a good altitude to be based and make a good side by. If aircraft over [the first] VOR at 8;000 FT for noise abatement then [next sector] shouldn't stack another aircraft at 9;000 FT. They should vector aircraft to the west and put them in trail at 6;000 FT. It helps out the finals and makes it easier for the pilot to have a stable approach on final.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a loss of required wake turbulence separation claiming the Feeder Controller failed to provide a workable feed given the final airspace constraints.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Descending on the LZARD SIX Arrival into Tampa we were told to increase speed to 300 knots or better. There was a B737 behind us. After Crossing JAYJA at FL270 approach asked us to descend to FL180; then 16;000 feet; then 15;000 feet. We complied. Before Leveling at 15;000 feet we were asked to cross OLENE at 13;000 feet and 250 knots. OLENE is depicted as an 'Expect' at 13;000 feet and 250 knots landing south. We acknowledged the request and took immediate action but soon realized that this was outside of safe operating limits. After programming a vertical direct to OLENE at 13;000 feet we got the scratch pad message OVER MAX/VERT meaning the descent angle we had asked for was more than 6 degrees. We did our best to comply with the restriction in a safe manner but were unable to notify approach before reaching the fix. The B737 behind us; given the same instruction; also unable to comply; was telling approach the same thing that we wanted to tell them; 'unable.' After crossing the fix we explained that we had done our best and approach acknowledged that we had been 'close enough.' Clearly the Approach Controller made a mistake. Slowing the B737 down would have been safer than asking us to speed up.


Second narrative: We were told to resume normal speed so I was slowing from the assigned speed of 300 knots to normal of 270.


Synopsis: Pressed by ATC to accelerate due to traffic behind and to descend via step clearances the flight crew of an EMB-175 was unable to make ATC's assigned crossing restriction of 13;000 and 250 KTS at OLENE on the LZARD STAR to TPA.
Date: 202111
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: About mid way of flight; 3rd FA (Flight Attendant) called to report a 'Polish' abnormal odor mid to aft cabin.  Reported garbage bins had same odor. Perhaps 10 minutes later; she called again to report same issue. Fumes Report was completed. Upon arrival after engine shut down same FA called to report a fuel odor in the aft galley.  At that point I wrote it up and called Maintenance. Neither pilot ever smelled a thing. There were no complaints from any passenger about odors that was passed to me. Other FA's never reported noticing any odor to me. I asked specifically about severity and all 3 times [response was] 'it wasn't that bad; I can just smell something.' I have to trust crew members feedback so in the interest of safety and caution I wrote it up.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported a Flight Attendant notified the flight crew on three occasions of fumes in the passenger cabin. Upon arrival Captain entered the discrepancy in the aircraft logbook.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
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: Other on position movement
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Around XA:00 pm local I was working Area D mids at sector X when the nightly COVID cleaning crew came through and cleaned half of our area. After they left I asked the other Controller in the area to go set up to bring the sector over to Sector Y; so when the cleaning crew comes back they could clean where I was sitting. Controller went over; opened the position; and took control of the airspace. I then went over to take the position back from at Sector Y so I could sit down and continue working; and at this time we realized that the VCSC [Voice Communication Switch] was not properly configured for the mids position. There were only 5 or 6 frequencies on the panel out of the 16 or so for Area D; and very few random landlines were available for ZZZ; ZZZ1; and ZZZ2 [Airport] towers. We had to scramble to tell other sectors to use only the frequencies that we had up; as the standard frequencies were not available. To make things worse; there was a massive push of ZZZ3 [Airport] departure traffic at this time coming out over ZZZ4 [Airport] and we didn't have the frequency they use OR the landline to ZZZ3 to tell them to use a frequency we had up. The other Controller then went over to sector A which wasn't being used but had all the correct landlines and used it to call the sectors around me including ZZZ3 and tell them to put aircraft on a different frequency. It was a pretty bad situation considering if any of those departures had an issue and had to return to ZZZ3 I would have had no way to communicate or coordinate with the ZZZ3 approach controllers. I had to work like that for 15 minutes or so until the crew came back to clean the rest of the area and we moved the position back to Sector X.This is the third or fourth time I've reported this by now; we need a massive overhaul at this point of the Area D VCSC system to get everything where it needs to be; and have management properly trained on how to format it and be able to quickly fix it when there is something missing.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported trying to move sector positions to help accommodate COVID-19 cleaners but ran into problems with the voice switches and frequencies not being configured correctly.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While the aircraft was still connected to the tug; and with personnel under the nose of the aircraft I was being given the 'clear to taxi' signal from the ground crew. The ground crew member did not understand proper pushback procedures.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported ramp personnel gave them the 'clear to taxi signal' with other persons under the aircraft.
Date: 201909
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Toilet Furnishing
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: One of the rear bathrooms was deferred due to toilet flusher broken. The other bathroom was being used by a very sick passenger and had been in there for 45 minutes. There was a long line of people needing to use bathroom. I looked inside bathroom that was broken and noticed that you were able to flush toilet so; I let 2 people go in that said they were in pain and needed to relieve themselves. I then called Captain and he said do not let anyone use that bathroom so closed it off. No one else used that bathroom.On an 800 aircraft and on a 5 hour flight all restrooms should be usable. If not; there should be duct tape placed around it so it cannot be opened and no one including Flight Attendant are tempted to open it and see what was wrong with it.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported allowing passengers to use a lavatory that had been placed on MEL.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on our descent into Seattle on the Olympia arrival with a clearance to descend via the arrival. A few minutes later we were taken off the arrival and given 'proceed direct ARVAD' by Approach Control without any new altitude restriction. I queried Approach Control that we were not given a new altitude when taken off the arrival and he said; 'None was required since ARVAD has 12;000 posted on the STAR.' SHOULD WE NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN A NEW ALTITUDE CROSSING RESTRICTION SINCE WE WERE TAKEN OFF THE ARRIVAL? Again; when I asked this of ATC they said 'no; as long as ARVAD had an altitude associated with it.' He apparently expected me to cross at 12;000 without being told to do so without any other clarification or communication after being removed from the STAR. We then verified to him that we are now cleared to descent to cross ARVAD at 12;000 FT. All else was normal. I write this in order to receive feed back and clarification for standardization and safety sake.




Synopsis: Air carrier arrival into SEA experienced confusion with regard to the published altitude restrictions on the STAR and ATC's expectations regarding altitudes after issuing vectors.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Turned into gate and observed everything clear behind the lines; including jet bridge. DGS inop; marshaled towards gate. Approaching stopping point after passing jet bridge cab (which fortunately was pulled well back); I commented to FO that it seemed a more forward stop instruction than normal. After shutdown; ground crew connected headset and informed me they had parked me too far forward; on 777 spot. A tug was connected and aircraft moved back to correct spot. It then occurred to me that the engine and wing must have come very close to the jet bridge during initial parking - I cannot see the engine or inboard wing from the flight deck; and in any case was focused on the marshaller's wands in front of me. Upon leaving the aircraft; the gate agent informed me he had to retract the bridge out the way of the wing (second time that week on that gate; he said) during the taxi in. I called the Ops Manager on duty in the tower and he reviewed the tape; estimating we came within 4 feet of a collision; due to being marshaled too far forward. I asked him to save the video and then called the Chief Pilot to inform him of event.The gate agent is to be commended to the highest degree for promptly moving the bridge back upon seeing the event unfolding. We are taught: 'If there is any doubt; stop the aircraft.' In this case; I had checked everything behind the lines; and a marshaller present; and followed his instructions; there was no doubt in my mind that he would be trained properly for that gate and A319. I note that the gate has no type-specific stop markings - just letters. This is an accident waiting to happen. The red lines don't protect us if we are directed onto the incorrect stopping point.Paint the parking areas with specific types; just like even developing countries manage to do. Service the DGS to be operative in lieu of marshallers.


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


Synopsis: A319 on taxi in was marshaled too far forward almost hitting the jet bridge. Electronic parking system was inoperative.