elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on correct VNAV Vertical Path and airspeed on the MARNR 3 arrival we crossed over RAYNI waypoint and FMC instantly calculated we were high. We received prior message 'Steep Descent after RAYNI;' which is a VERY common occurrence on this arrival. With speedbrake fully deployed; the use of the landing gear for additional drag was used. The subsequent waypoint requires slowing from 250 KTS to 230 KTS while still descending and then a further speed reduction to 210 KTS. Despite all measures to meet speed and altitude constraints it became apparent we would not make the 'cross between 6;500 and 6;000' restriction. However; prior to GRIFY we were given an approach clearance and proceeded to SeaTac visually; crossing GRIFY at approximately 7;000 FT. Much has been discussed about this arrival; but it is apparent that in order to meet the GRIFY crossing restriction the speedbrake and landing gear must be deployed at least 20 miles from the field; which seems very unusual. Despite this fact; the use of the landing gear should have been used immediately crossing RAYNI waypoint. The portion of this arrival from RAYNI to GRIFY is a prime example of 'we can slow down but NOT go down' at the same time.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports difficulty flying the vertical profile of the MARNR 3 arrival TO SEA between RAYNI and GRIFY and also meeting the speed restrictions. Both the landing gear and full speed brakes are required and in this case were still not enough.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HIO.Tower, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D HIO
ATC / advisory: Tower HIO
Second aircraft: PA-44 Seminole/Turbo Seminole
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Local 1. Aircraft X went around for runway 31L. I instructed him to follow the second [Aircraft] on downwind (Aircraft Y) and make left closed traffic. Several minutes later I had to extend Aircraft Y in the downwind. I told Aircraft X to continue following the Aircraft Y and extend downwind. Aircraft X read back 'extend downwind.' Several minutes later I missed Aircraft X state on frequency 'turning base.' He turned base on his own and managed to cut off the Aircraft Y he had been following. Aircraft Y had to make an evasive left turn to avoid Aircraft X; who cut him off on final. I was able to resequencing everyone; and they landed without incident.I was busy and I missed Aircraft X turning base on his own. In the future I will continue to exercise vigilance to ensure that the aircraft are following my instructions.




Synopsis: A Tower Local Controller did not notice that an aircraft that was supposed to follow another aircraft turned in front of the aircraft it was supposed to follow.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On arrival to ZZZ; upon selection of the landing gear; received the 'GEAR DISAGREE' warning message with the associated aural message. We executed a missed approach and continued with Approach for vectors to run the QRH. Flight Attendant was notified of the situation and told her we would get back to her in a few minutesRunning the QRH; we accomplished a manual gear extension. Based on the situation and abnormal indications we received at the start of this problem; we felt a longer runway was needed to be 'suitable' for safety. A diversion to ZZZ1 was now the new plan. Flight Attendant was then called again and given all information and we landed at ZZZ1 without incident. Threats were the close and tight airspace and the QRH at the same time. [ATC] did a great job handling us.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported receiving a gear disagree while extending the landing gear to land at ZZZ. The crew diverted to nearby ZZZ1 for its longer runways and manually extended the gear.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon completion of flight in ZZZ; we parked the aircraft at [the] gate. After completing the after landing checklist I noticed that a ramp worker was trying to communicate to me through hand signaling. I opened the cockpit window and the ramp worker stated that the right main landing gear was on fire and that the fire fighters were notified and on their way to the gate to assist. I then instructed ramp personnel to retrieve a fire extinguisher to start fighting the fire until the emergency equipment arrived. I then contacted operations to notify them of the situation and they stated that they had already been alerted. While I was communicating with ramp personnel and operations; the Captain ordered the passengers to evacuate the aircraft through the main cabin door via the PA. The flight attendants followed up with the evacuation instructions verbally and the evacuation was completed without incident. Emergency personnel extinguished the brake fire.


Second narrative: Aircraft X arrived at ZZZ into gate with a flat tire. When the aircraft was parked the brakes/tire caught on fire. The fire department was called to put out fire on main landing gear.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew and ground personnel reported Main Landing Gear caught fire at gate after taxi-in.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TRI.TRACON, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 425/441 Conquest I/Conquest II
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: TRACON TRI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: A long standing culture is that 'nobody cares' if a VFR enters another facility's airspace without a handoff/pointout.  This has been a source of debate at this facility for over 20 years.During OJT (On Job Training) a VFR flight-following [aircraft] was approaching the receiving facility but not in handoff status. OJTI (On Job Training Instructor) told the trainee to commence it or manually coordinate the handoff. The Controller on Flight Data asked; 'Does a VFR need approval to enter center's airspace? It's VFR. There is no separation standard.' OJTI stated that Chapter 5 of the 7110.65 states that no aircraft under your control can enter another facility/sector's airspace without a handoff or pointout; and that it does not differentiate between IFR or VFR.Aircraft X departed and climbing to 17;500 feet. NAS VFR flights do not auto-handoff and the OJT was distracted by an aircraft that was telling us about an unknown aircraft following it in close proximity. Tower called down to tell Data that Aircraft X was climbing unrestricted; OJT did not know that. OJTI saw Aircraft X approaching the top of our airspace and told the trainee to hand it off or stop the climb; the aircraft climbed into center airspace before it could occur. No loss of separation with other aircraft.The 7110.65 Chapter 4 is IFR. The 7110.65 Chapter 5 is radar. Chapter 5 of the 7110.65 states that no aircraft under your control can enter another facility/sector's airspace without a handoff or pointout; and that it does not differentiate between IFR or VFR. Some controllers maintain that VFR aircraft under one's control need no handoff/pointout to enter another facility/sectors airspace.I expect this to be unambiguously clarified; briefed; and enforced.




Synopsis: Controllers had a disagreement over the requirement to hand off a VFR aircraft from a TRACON to an ARTCC.
Date: 201904
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying the RNAV RNP Z Rwy 34R; at HIMOM; autopilot on; the aircraft maintained 11;000 feet and did not turn for the approach. We had programmed the approach and checked that all points were in the system. We had LNAV and VNAV selected with 7;000 feet for the next altitude in the window. When the plane didn't turn I clicked off the autopilot to correct the course and start descent; but the controller told us to maintain heading and then vectored us for the Visual Approach 34R.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV RNP Z Approach to 34R at DEN when the autopilot failed to maintain the programmed track.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BVI.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Tower BVI
Second aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Just after training in slow flight maneuvers; and upon the completion of clearing turns to clear the area; my student and I began to enter a simulated engine failure scenario. Seconds after establishing best glide speed of the aircraft; my student announced that he saw a helicopter on his side of the aircraft. I looked out his side of the aircraft and saw an EC 135 Eurocopter passing approximately 200 FT below us from left to right. It was a medical type helicopter that services the local area. The event took place in clear conditions in the middle of the local flight training practice area.




Synopsis: C172R instructor pilot reported an NMAC with a medical helicopter in the BVI flight training practice area.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure from Runway XX at ZZZ during an instrument training flight I was the student flying with foggles on with my flight instructor in the right seat. In the departure phase of flight we were climbing out at about 2;000 feet southwest bound direct to ZZZZZ waypoint; an aircraft which had made little to no radio calls seemingly overflew the airport and came directly below us from the left to right at about 100 feet and was not seen until it had already gone past and was seen on the right side of our aircraft by my flight instructor. We had made all of the required and appropriate radio calls as prescribed by the SOPs for the flight school; but had heard nothing about this aircraft or of its intentions. This has become a big issue at ZZZ as we are not supposed to make what seem to be the necessary position calls due to administration at the flight school.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported NMAC on departure from a non-towered field.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I; Pilot in Command; supported by a type rated Second in Command; on an IFR flight. We arrived on a visual approach to Runway XL upon completion of a visual approach and landing. As the aircraft slowed down to taxi speed; I proceeded to taxi clear of Runway XL onto [a taxiway]; on the right turn to enter the taxiway. The aircraft did not respond accordingly to the turn and break pressure input applied on the rudder pedals. At this time I proceeded to bring the aircraft to a complete stop with no immediate success as the airplane continued to slowly taxi clear off the runway onto the taxiway and continue on to the grass area east of the taxiway while remaining clear of any obstacles; without compromising safety of souls on board and aircraft structure. The aircraft came to a complete stop at which time the aircraft was secured following checklist procedures and passengers and crew then safely deplaned the aircraft.




Synopsis: A CE560XL's steering and brakes failed on landing so that the aircraft slowly taxied off the end of the runway without damage to property or injury injury to those on board.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft X reported descending for severe wake turbulence before entering my airspace. I observed the change in altitude during a transmission to another aircraft that had been blocked. As I went to talk to Aircraft X; he reported descending for severe wake turbulence. We discussed possible traffic in the area and I determined that it was probably wake turbulence from Aircraft Y which was approximately 10-12 miles in front at the time of the incident. I descended Aircraft X immediately to FL300 to get Aircraft X under control and keep them out of the wake turbulence and then immediately notified SLC sector 46 to advise them of the descent. SLC sector 46 released control. I then assigned a slower speed to Aircraft X to make more room since Aircraft X would be following Aircraft Y into LAS; the winds were about 50kts out of the NW at the time. It is not unusual to get bad rides in the area; but no other mod to severe turbulence was reported before the incident.Not sure of any recommendations because this is an unusual situation.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller reports a Hawker 125 reported severe turbulence; the aircraft was following a heavy B767-300 on the same route 10 to 12 miles ahead.  The Controller gave a further descent clearance to the aircraft to a suitable altitude.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While I am writing this event report for this flight; it is typical of many flights I have had. I noted during my walk-around 17 items of Company MAIL to be loaded in the cargo bin. Item 1 was an unsealed cardboard box; the others were all cases of soda and water. They all had neon-orange stickers on them (that I have been unable to find in the Operating Manual) that require a box to be checked. The Commissary box (including soda; napkins...) was NOT checked. These forms clearly state two signatures; both required. Only one signature; with no boxes checked on ALL 17 forms/stickers. Our HAZMAT training states we must assume all unidentified company mail/cargo is HAZMAT. I therefore deny all items with this unidentified form when it is not filled out. There are 3 forms for NON-HAZMAT material in the company that I have seen. Two are noted deep in the Operating Manual. I have been unable to find the most common one; as stated above. The Operating Manual has a forms section: there are 3 examples in it; none talk about company mail. The HAZMAT section talks about forms required for carrying allowable HAZMAT. I do not want to end up like past incidents of inflight fires. I would like a one stop spot in the Operating Manual to find all approved forms that may affect the safety or legality of the aircraft.I would suggest better training of persons filling out the forms is required. Baggage handlers should be trained to not load any items that do not have the properly filled out forms on them. Forms should be located in an easy to find spot in the Operating Manual; not buried in it. We should have one approved form; not 3.




Synopsis: A MD-80 Captain refused to allow company cargo to remain on the aircraft because the HAZMAT forms were not properly completed and in his investigative process he found Company documentation and training lacking.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PSO.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E PSO
ATC / advisory: UNICOM PSO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon approach to the airport; I saw that a balloon was basically on the extended centerline of Runway 01; so I extended my base leg to give the balloon plenty of clearance. Also; my [fellow pilot] was on a tight base leg; and flew that leg on the inside (airport side) of the balloon. As I completed my deviation around the balloon and re-intercepted the extended centerline while descending on the glide path; well past the balloon; the balloon pilot made a call on UNICOM; implying I had come too close to his aircraft. Perhaps I did not meet his spacing expectation; but I have a fair amount of aviation experience. At no time did I pass within 1;000 feet of his balloon.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported maneuvering on final to avoid a balloon.