elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Presidential movements continue to be an issue between DCA and PCT. Aircraft X was ADW inbound to [DC Area]. DCA tower called with a 3 minute to lift call off ADW which is 7 miles SE of DCA. We begin holding arrivals at that point. We were just beginning an arrival push and approach/final had 15 planes or more. While we were holding airplanes in the sky and backing up ZDC; DCA tower continued to release airplanes compounding the issue. A lot of arrivals spinning and more departures entering the NAS is a dangerous game for DCA tower to play. DCA tower took it two steps further this movement by launching two departures with Aircraft X less than a mile and no altitude; converging. How is it we on approach are not allowed to run arrivals yet they have the authority to release airplanes right at presidential aircraft? Advise DCA tower the needs of the TRACON during these movements and educate them on proper coordination. Develop a Work group between DCA/PCT/ADW on VIP movements.


Second narrative: I was working Aircraft X from ADW to the National Observatory (NOB). On initial contact; Aircraft X advised that they would be using alternate routing. I acknowledged their transmission and advised the tower supervisor and local controller. Aircraft X proceeded via Woods Corner - to the river - route 4 - route 1 - to the NOB [National Observatory]. I was advised later on that PCT MTV [Mount Vernon Area] had concerns about the amount of time that arrivals were stopped and about departures off of DCA. Basic separation was maintained and I had Aircraft X in sight from WC all the way to their destination.We do not question when a [VIP] aircraft changes its route. If they could provide earlier notification then initial call on frequency it would be optimal. We understand when bad weather forces a change.


Synopsis: PCT TRACON and DCA Tower Controller reported an unsafe situation involving VIP movements.
Date: 201510
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Propeller
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During a high power performance run; at approximately 96% torque; the parking brake handle released and the plane lurched forward; jumping the chocks. The left engine struck the GPU and damaged the #1 propeller. The aircraft movement was stopped by applying the toe brakes; retarding the throttles and reapplying parking brake. [In the future] chock all three gear; remove GPU from run area.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Technician described an engine high power run where the parking brake became released; which resulted in the propeller contacting a piece of ground equipment.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Automation Overrode Flight Crew; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising in flight with the autopilot on (STEC-50 model); heading and altitude mode were selected. I pulled out the aircraft AML to perform the trend checks; in addition to organizing all of my respective paperwork/jepp charts. Only a minute or two had passed (as I was just completing my paperwork); but when I glanced up to fully rescan my instruments; the aircraft was in an usual attitude: the nose was slightly highly; and the aircraft was banking to the right approximately 30 degrees. The aircraft had deviated 200 feet higher than my assigned altitude of 12;000ft; and had deviated course by 160 degrees. I immediately disconnected the autopilot via the control yoke button; and corrected the unusual attitude with pitch and bank. While correcting; I notified ATC of the deviation: Center re-cleared me to a heading of 320; heading direct when able to my next Nav-Aid; and re-assigned 12;000ft for my altitude.One thing that I saw upon recognizing the unusual attitude; was also that the autopilot status lights still showed the unit was engaged: The green active light was on; in addition to the 'HDG' and 'ALT' modes engaged (via their amber annunciators). In monitoring the autopilot for the remainder of the flight; I noted that the altitude would not uncommonly deviate by as much as 100ft; yet the autopilot would not give the 'trim up' or 'trim down' annunciations. When completing paperwork and organizing charts; devote more time to quick instrument scans to avoid automation.




Synopsis: A SA-227 with the STEC-50 autopilot made an uncommanded climb and turn with HDG and ALT mode engaged annunciated. Later; the autopilot would deviate ± 100' without a TRIM UP or TRIM DOWN alert.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our CPDLC Clearance was the ORCKA1; except maintain 5000 feet. After taking off of Runway 24L; we were soon cleared to 12000 feet with a left turn direct to KLIPR. When inbound to KLIPR; Departure control cleared us to climb via SID. We made the restriction of 10000 at KLIPR and leveled off at 12000 feet. We were approaching KEGGS; which has an altitude restriction between 13000 feet and 19000 feet. The pilot flying and I were discussing our altitude clearance when Departure Control said that he noticed that we had leveled at 12000 feet and was having trouble with this SID all day. He asked us what we would like to hear for a climb clearance; and I suggested that he say; 'Climb via SID to FL230.' As a result of our little discussion; we started our climb too late to make the altitude restriction at KEGGS; crossing at about 12300 feet. Throughout the ATC system; pilots climb and descend to destination; or limit; altitudes; and do not fly through restrictions. Even on STARs; when descending via; the destination altitude is the altitude set for the runway transition. I understand that this is new phraseology for SIDs and STARs; but in this case; the instructions are incomplete. Saying only to 'Climb via SID' told us how to climb; but not where to climb to. Our altitude restriction as we understood it was 12000 feet.I suggest that the phraseology be amended; particularly with SIDs; to ensure that pilots know what altitude they are flying to as well as how they will fly to it. This is in keeping with the rest of the ATC system. I suggested to the Departure controller to say; 'Climb via SID to FL230.' Or perhaps say 'Climb via SID to top of SID.'




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported they misunderstood Departure Controller's altitude assignment due to new phraseology associated with new OAPM RNAV departures.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Electrical / sulfuric type burning smell detected in flight deck at 17;000 ft. MSL. [Requested Priority Handling]; went on oxygen and smoke goggles. Determined ZZZ was the closest suitable airport in terms of time. Started the QRH procedures and descent with approach. Upon landing and pulling off Runway XX with CFRs; approximately 5 seconds after bag door EICAS indication; the smell returned for a few seconds. No damage or injuries noted. Smell in flight deck of a mix between ozone (electrical) and a sulfur type odor.Cause: Unknown. We were told that during the previous night's emergency that Maintenance had determined it was an issue with pack 1 and it was placarded inoperative and MEL'd. We still got the same smell today.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported 'electrical/sulfuric' fumes during climb and executed an uneventful emergency diversion.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HND.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the departure from HND I was incorrectly maintaining 481 feet per minute or better instead of 481 feet per mile. The Controller asked for best rate and I corrected the problem quickly by asking for a brief shuttle climb which he approved but he still indicated he got an altitude alert. My terrain system never showed us below 1;000 feet above the terrain. However; I recognize I did not comply with the departure procedure. I have since reviewed this procedure with a flight instructor and the routing which I correctly had and never deviated from but I did repeatedly verify with the controllers that I was on the correct 080 radial and connected to the correct airway. When I was handed off to LA Center; the Controller indicated he was told I had trouble with the routing but I never deviated. In the future I will make sure that I get the right climb rate based on the per mile not per minute which will lower the concern when arriving or departing a new busy airspace like Las Vegas allowing me to be more confident of the routing as well.




Synopsis: A C-182RG pilot departing HND was given a Terrain Alert by ATC when he improperly maintained his climb rate at or above 481 feet per minute; rather than the 481 feet per mile as required for terrain clearance.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Signed off for the wrong procedure. Misread. Did not see the word Fixed and assumed that it was for the handheld ELT. Completed procedure for the ELT (portable) using proper ETN and signed off the block. I suggest that this block have a concise description within the statement that identifies which ELT so that the word at the top is not missed.




Synopsis: Technician reported misreading work cards and performing the maintenance task incorrectly.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to descend on the HYDRR 1 Arrival to Phoenix via the 25L Transition. We were then given a runway change to 26 due to an anticipated Runway Inspection (RWY 25R was closed). Just prior to CHAVO waypoint; the airplane FMS Mode went from PATH to Vertical Speed (pink) and the airplane pitched over to a greater than 3;000 FPM descent. Even though the VNAV mode was pink; the airplane flew through the 9;000 foot restriction at CHAVO. The Captain alerted the First Officer verbally (flying pilot) that the FMS/Auto Pilot had basically failed and to hand fly the airplane and return to 9;000 feet. The plane got as low as 8;500 to 8;600 feet. We returned promptly to 9;000 feet.English is not the 'home' language for the First Officer. He was surprised (zone of confusion) when I told him to hand fly the airplane and get the FMS/Autopilot off. Thus; the reason for the very quick 500 feet altitude bust. It should be noted; that the Phoenix Approach Controller never told us to check our altitude as we were over an area of high terrain.


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


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported descending through an altitude on the arrival when the FMS/autopilot failed to level off after an aggressive descent rate.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was the FLM on duty in the Tower cab providing OJTI to a CPC at the time of the incident. I was explaining MORs (Mandatory Occurrence Report) and significant events notifications and showing the CPC where to find the contact numbers. Traffic was light and there were only two positions open as per the COVID staffing; LC1/LC2/LA were combined as CD/FD/GC were also combined. I had one other person on a break.While giving instruction and demonstrating required activity for significant MORs to the CPC; I heard the ASDE-X alarm 'Runway XR go-around' I immediately looked up and scanned Runway XR to assess the situation and determine what caused the alarm. I observed Aircraft Y; 1/2 mile final landing on Runway XR and a small GA aircraft on Taxiway [5] turning South on Taxiway [3]. I didn't observe any other targets or obstructions on the runway surface area. At that time Aircraft Y was already flaring out on the runway. I then asked the LC Controller why wasn't Aircraft Y sent around. The Controller responded; 'The other aircraft cleared the runway.' I then informed the Controller if the safety logic says to send someone around on a runway which the aircraft was landing it was mandatory to comply. The Controller advised me that they thought it was safer to land than send the aircraft around. I then informed the Controller that we are obligated to send the aircraft around per the JO7110.65 and if the pilot decided to land anyway then I would have a conversation with the pilot.Remind controllers that the safety logic overrides same runway separation and that it's mandatory to comply with the safety logic instructions. I did have this conversation with my crew after the incident and was shocked to know they weren't aware of this and thought it was a discretionary decision.




Synopsis: Tower Front Line Manager reported a runway incursion and concerns with the Local Controller not issuing a go-around instruction to an aircraft landing on the same runway.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Due to numerous emails from management regarding vaccination requirements and issues regarding reasonable accommodation I became distracted. During before takeoff checklist; I failed to notice our final weights had not been sent and used the weight on our T/O performance data. We finally received our weights after takeoff. This caused another distraction that resulted in a missed ATC traffic call and vectors from ATC.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported failing to notice the final weights had not been sent and inadvertently used old data. The reporter stated they were distracted by company communications regarding vaccination requirements.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ICT.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
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 C ICT
ATC / advisory: Tower ICT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Captain is flying and descends at 280 kts. 1500 fpm with zero VNAV help programmed in. As a result; he is unaware of how high he is with respect to the airport. 240 kts.; high; and clean at 5 mile right base. Calls for gear at 225 kts. to slow and then Flaps 8/20/30/45 while on base; all within 8mi to 5 mi base. At 0.5 miles from final course and 90 degrees from 5 mile FAF; starts 45 degree turn because he's overshooting final and full deflection high on the glide slope. He corrects course but remains high. Chases the glideslope down the entire way at almost idle. Was fully configured at 1;000 ft and glideslope was within full deflection (barely). I just revisited the stabilized approach criteria and should have called a go-around. Captain inability to plan vertical descent and speed adjustments. Captain's inability to judge a base to final turn distance; speed and altitude. VNAV; visual approach; and SOP guideline review is necessary. This Captain has not performed a visual approach to SOPM guidelines in three trips.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported that the Captain performed multiple unstabilized approaches to ICT airport.