elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After at least one frequency change in Kansas City Center; [the] Captain commented we had not heard from center for a number of minutes. I immediately looked at our navigation display and saw Des Moines about 5 to 10 miles to the North. From flying this trip several times; I realized we probably should be with Chicago Center if not Minneapolis. We listened for about another 20 seconds to the frequency and only heard other aircraft speaking; not ATC. Immediately upon confirming this with [the] Captain; I pulled up the Enroute chart on the EFB and tried to get a frequency for our location. I was able to find a list of about 30 frequencies for MSP center (we had flown by DSM at this point). We tried a few of these frequencies with no luck so [the] Captain attempted to have another airplane relay our position and get the proper frequency. After what seemed like about 10 minutes to me; and several back and forths between the relay aircraft and center about our callsign and position; we received a frequency from the relay aircraft; contacted Minneapolis Center; and pressed on to [our destination]. At no time prior to our self-discovery of being on an old frequency did we hear ATC query our position on the frequency we were on or on Guard. We heard no Guard calls period. At no time was the safety of the flight or ability to reach Grand Forks in doubt.From my perspective; ATC missed our handoff and forgot about us. I never heard our callsign (obviously) on frequency to switch to another center or hear a call on Guard. I did not consider this a safety issue. Upon further reflection; I do recall one leg of the many I flew [on this route] had us change squawks by Kansas City Center. If it was indeed this leg; which I am not sure since this is almost a week ago now; that could have contributed to ATC losing track of us. Just a thought. The one thing that could have helped is a better depiction on the Enroute chart of what frequency to be on in a particular geographic location as opposed to a whole list of all the MSP center frequencies.


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


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported losing contact with ZKC ARTCC in the vicinity of DSM.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During Exterior Preflight inspection it was noted that the Number 2 engine was actively leaking fuel.  Maintenance was consulted and it was determined continued operation was possible providing a successful engine run was completed and the fuel leak had stopped.  Maintenance Control was contacted and approval for an engine run was approved.  I briefed the ramp and maintenance personnel on the logistics of the gate engine run.  The engine run was completed at the gate.  Shortly afterwards we received verification from the Maintenance Technician that we were good as the leak had stopped.  We were informed that the maintenance release would be processed shortly.  Two minutes later we noted on the iPad that the deferral mentioned by the Technician was processed.  As the Number 2 engine was running at the gate and I briefed that we would push as soon as Maintenance said we were good we released the brake and commenced the push.  In-flight we received a message to contact the Dispatch.  After landing a Manager mentioned we may have departed without a maintenance release.  We retained the same plane for the subsequent flight with a valid maintenance release with no maintenance action.


Second narrative: Pre-flight planning completed and aircraft had valid maintenance release.  Fuel leak found on Number 2 engine during walk around.  Local maintenance consulted.  Technician told us engine can be started and run at the gate and if fuel leak stopped; issue would be put on deferral; and we could just push out and continue.  Received authorization from Maintenance Control for engine run and all personnel were briefed on procedure.  Number 2 engine was started and run at the gate with Technician on the headset. Technician told us that fuel leak stopped after startup so paperwork would be completed immediately; deferral issued and we were good to go.  Flight pushed back very soon after as briefed; taxied out and took off.  Message was received in flight to contact Dispatch management upon landing ZZZ1.  Called and [was] told apparently flight departed without valid maintenance release.  We received a valid maintenance release and flew same aircraft to ZZZ2 without incident.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported they took off without proper maintenance release documentation.
Date: 201505
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: Parked
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We took the aircraft after a weekly inspection in ZZZ. Logbook was in correct order. Flight was uneventful to ZZZ1. While doing his walkaround; the First Officer came back with a pair of vise grips/pliers and said he found them wedged in the landing gear; somewhere around the shimmy damper. At this time we called ZZZ1 Maintenance; but they had not touched the aircraft since its arrival about 10 minutes prior. We have to assume that the vise grips were left by ZZZ Maintenance sometime during the weekly check (my guess is that they used them to remove the gear pins/covers and set them down on the gear). The First Officer also stated that numerous panels were open but that he closed them during his preflight in ZZZ.I wish I had known that the First Officer had closed panels during his preflight; I would have immediately called Maintenance and ensured that they were done with their checks. I'm not sure if they signed off the logbook prior to actually completing the inspections or if someone just forgot to close up after they were completed. I know that opinions have changed a few times over whether or not we should be closing panels but I've always been of the belief that we should always call Maintenance when panels are open. Perhaps it's being taught differently to the newer pilots here.




Synopsis: An A319 flight crew after landing discovered a pair of vice grip/pliers wedged in the landing gear during the aircraft walk around. Local Maintenance stated that they had not yet touched the aircraft. The Captain concluded that the pliers had been left by the departure station Maintenance.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VRB.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VRB
ATC / advisory: Tower VRB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A C560 was approved for a Visual Approach to Runway 11R from the southwest; position was given 15 miles from airport. Aircraft was turned over to Tower about 10 miles away; both in compliance with LOA. I had two practice VFR approaches behind the C560. I heard the D-Side answering the VRB Tower line just as I was noticing the C560 seeming to turn to the north and climb. D-Side confirmed my suspicions that something was wrong and he told me the Tower said they couldn't take him and he was coming back to us. VRB assigned a heading of 270; climbing to 2;000 FT and that was head-on into my VFR practice approaches. I descended the C560 down to 1;700 FT; then 1;600 FT and turned him back to the airport. The C560 also got an RA and descended below the MVA to 1;300 FT. I paralleled the aircraft with the Class D; slowed the aircraft as much as possible because they seemed to have a lot of pattern traffic. I then coordinated with the Tower and they took him from there. The Tower Controller called me to apologize and I understood that he got in a jam and we both agreed he should have done a go-around to the east; not back into my traffic. Procedures should be drawn up for traffic that is an unexpected go-around. Usually this situation does not happen without coordination as they get permission to spin the aircraft in case he's high or can't follow traffic for some reason. Aircraft executing an unexpected go-around should follow normal departure procedures. Secondly; we should develop a data base of errors that happen at the VRB terminal sector and VRB and FPR Tower. Then trends should be noted and isolated dangerous situations brought up in meetings between ZMA and VRB and FPR Towers. There are many questionable practices between all facilities involved.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller described a conflict event when an IFR inbound to VRB was unexpectedly turned out by VRB Tower into other inbound aircraft. The reporter suggested more formalized procedures for this type of occurrence.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: VFR flight en route 5500 ft direct [eastbound; to the destination]; incident happened near shoreline near ZZZ (exact distance not recorded.)Requested VFR flight following. Happened approximately 5 mins after the handover from [hand-off between TRACON controllers]. Both ATC facilities advised traffic. Pilot had traffic in sight the whole time but had no knowledge of the other aircraft's make/type; speed; intention; direction. Pilot exercised extreme caution. The other aircraft was not in communication with the same ATC frequency and was probably on an incorrect VFR altitude.ATC did not advise avoidance action; and I was not able to estimate the vertical distance until in close vicinity. It was eventually made aware to me at a close distance that the two aircrafts were on converging courses. The other aircraft passed 200-300 ft over my aircraft.I should have followed right of ways rules earlier to avoid potential hazards but the other aircraft was clearly on an incorrect altitude (cruising at 5500 FT on 180-359 heading). This flight is one of my very first flights after my PPL [Private Pilots License] check ride and my second night x-country. This will indeed be a very important lesson for my future flying.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported NMAC during cruise with aircraft who was possibly on incorrect VFR altitude.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departure strip printed and I retrieved for an A320. Pilot checked in climbing to 3;000 FT on runway heading. I observed the primary target off the departure end; established RADAR contact with the aircraft; and instructed it to climb to 15;000 FT and turn left heading 360. I meant to ask the pilot to make sure transponder was on; but did not. I got busy with other departures and arrivals and forgot about the primary target aircraft. Pilot called back about ten minutes later to verify he was supposed to still be on my frequency. I expanded the RADAR scope range and asked the pilot to turn the transponder on; the A320 tagged up about 30 miles beyond Approach airspace boundary; level at 15;000 FT. I called Center to perform a late hand off; Center accepted the hand off and I switched the aircraft. Recommendation; be more alert.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described an airspace incursion event into an adjacent Center sector when departure traffic; without a transponder; went unnoticed by the reporter after initially being RADAR identified as a primary target off the runway.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pushed back [in] DEN. Single engine taxi turn to east. Night time taxi with SOP taxi lighting utilized; and two pilots clearing area before taxi. Subsequently; a pickup truck continued to approach and refused to yield to aircraft movement underway. I quickly stopped aircraft; so as to ensure no potential for loss of separation between aircraft and vehicle. While preparing to recover taxi operations and to taxi again; second vehicle; this time a catering truck; proceeded to pass closely in front of aircraft. This was after additional aircraft lights were selected for increased aircraft visibility and obvious taxi intention at night. Reported two vehicle issues with Ramp Tower; including second catering truck number. Ramp Tower advised this sort of event had happened multiple times that evening on the ramp. This event caused distraction during an otherwise busy departure.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that a pickup truck refused to yield to the aircraft on the ramp; resulting in a ground conflict.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: First Officer's Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) deferred. After arriving at aircraft we found the EFB removed from the First Officer's side. The First Officer had no way of accomplishing the performance data from his seat. We called Maintenance and asked for a [performance laptop] and were told there are none available. Our choices were 1) Captain do the performance data for takeoff; 2) call Dispatch or 3) First Officer kneel behind the Captain's seat and do the data on the Captain's EFB. Choice 3 was the quickest way to accomplish this and to make an on time push. In order to try to maintain the preflight as standard as possible; the First Officer did the data from behind my seat; went back to the right seat and then I handed the EFB (with a too short cord) to the First Officer for the performance briefing. This is awkward to say the least. During the taxi we were asked to do an intersection takeoff and I would have had to get off the taxiway; set the brake and do the data. We did get clearance for a full length runway takeoff. At our arrival airport we had to go into holding for reports of severe windshear. No problem with the performance data airborne; but it would have been better if the First Officer was able to do the data for flaps 20 and I could have stayed focused on the conditions at the airport. This could be viewed as an annoyance that caused non-standard procedures up until this point. The real problem was departing the airport and while wind shear conditions still existed. I want data based on the actual winds called by the Tower. The Captain should not have to run the data under these conditions. We don't train to just go with what data we have in windshear conditions. Flight Operation Manual also states that cell phones are not permitted from block out to block in. Trying to get performance data from Dispatch on ACARS when I need it immediately puts an unreasonable burden on the Captain. There was not another company aircraft we could have asked for the data. I also understand we are not going to have the [performance program] loaded in the iPad's due to costs. Do not defer the First Officer's EFB if a [performance laptop] is not available. I realize the MEL may not get changed; but at the very least; Maintenance could use 'best practices' to only defer the Captains side. The EFB's should have been swapped. Put the [performance program] on the iPad's.




Synopsis: A300 Captain laments being dispatched with the First Officer's EFB MEL'ed and removed from the aircraft requiring all performance calculations to be done by the Captain while airborne.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BOS.Airport, MA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Parking check complete flight deck ready and waiting for ground crew to call. First call from tug driver (male) indicated ground crew was ramp ready. I replied standby we will obtain clearance. Ramp cleared [flight] to push and disconnect at the top of the alley. I contacted the tug driver and said brakes released cleared to pushback disconnect at the top of the alley. 30 seconds expired and ramp queried as to why we were not pushing back.I attempted to call the tug driver with no response. The driver left the tug and headset with an active clearance. I attempted to call them with no contact. We cancelled the push and set the brake. The tug driver obviously was replaced by female voice. She indicated she was ramp ready. I indicated to her in the future to communicate with flight deck before you leave.She replied in an extremely hostile manner. Her words were unintelligible. When she calmed down I attempted to review with her the roles and procedures and she became hostile again. We contacted ramp to send a supervisor and a replacement driver as she was hostile. The supervisor assumed the role as lead and the tug driver position. We pushed and continued without further incident.




Synopsis: B-737 flight crew were ready for pushback. The pushback crew originally reported ready; pushback clearance was received; and the Captain was unable to contact the pushback crew. A different voice came on from the pushback crew and responded hostilely when reprimanded by the Captain. The Captain requested and received a replacement pushback crew.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LLLL.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: During the GEFFEN 1C Arrival/ILS X RWY 26; we experienced intermittent GPS/ADS-B Signal Interruption due to NOTAM military operations present in the Tel Aviv FIR. Just as we were about to intercept the RWY 26 localizer; we had a Nav Unavailable RNP. Since we were in VFR conditions with 8 miles visibility and the airport area in sight; we continued to intercept the localizer and proceeded to a normal landing. There was some map shift note as compared to the localizer course raw data.




Synopsis: Captain reported experiencing intermittent GPS/ADS-B signal interruption during ILS approach.