elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working R31 and it started to get busy. Fellow controllers noticed I was getting busy and told a Certified Professional Controller who was working D32 to go get D31; because the Supervisor was not around. Aircraft X had FL280 descending to FL250 in his data block when I took the handoff from R07 because he was above Aircraft Y who was level at FL240. When the Aircraft X checked on; I did not hear him say that he was Profile Descent (PD) to FL240. I noticed when Aircraft X was at FL247 two miles in front of Aircraft Y and I told him to maintain FL250. He said he would climb back up and the data block showed he was at FL243 before he climbed back to FL250. Upon listening to the tapes; I realized he did in fact say he was PD to FL240. When I listened to the R07 controller; he had issued a PD descent to FL250 and the pilot read back FL240. Hearback/Readback error should have been caught both times. Should have had a D-side earlier so I didn't get behind. Because I was trying to catch up and quickly move from one task to another I missed the incorrect altitude on initial check on.




Synopsis: ZSE Center Controller reported missing an initial call where the pilot reported descending to an altitude which caused a loss of separation with another aircraft.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LSE.Tower, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class D LSE
ATC / advisory: Tower LSE
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared as number one to land when I gave the position report of 1.5 miles from the airport.  Shortly after there was another aircraft that reported 2.5 and the Controller told him to do a left 360 for spacing.  As the Controller said that the plane that reported 2.5 flew in front of me within 500 feet and same altitude.  This prompted me to go full power and start climbing to miss the traffic.  I called the tower and reported going around due to traffic.This problem arose due to a wrong position report by the second aircraft.  This then leads into the controller having the wrong idea of where they were.One thing that helped me was when I heard what type the other plane was I kept my speed up for spacing.  By doing that it allowed me to transfer the speed into a climb giving me a faster climb.  This was very beneficial since the other plane started his left 360 in my direction.




Synopsis: PA-22 pilot reported an NMAC in the pattern at LSE airport.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was showing on the flight plan MYDIA Y240 SHAQQ. The pilot had reported over MYDIA at XA:24 with a center estimate of XA:23. The previous controller asked the pilot to report SNAKR intersection. At XA:27 I signed in and assumed the position for R+D sides for sector 72 Ocean East. I was attempting to take some non-radar position reports when I noticed a beacon code on the border between ZHU and ZMA airspace. I looked at the beacon code and saw on the flight strip that this was Aircraft X. I asked the pilot what fix he was navigating to and he answered direct SHAQQ intersection. I then asked the pilot what his route of flight was and he answered back with direct SHAQQ given by the previous controller in Merida centers airspace. I knew this was not true because Merida center would have had to request this route which would have been promptly denied by Houston Center due to being non-radar. I called ZMA Key West sector with a point-out and got this accomplished. I then asked the pilot again where he received this clearance and he stated that he may have been mistaken. After the point out and telling the Key West sector controller that the aircraft was direct SHAQQ I cleared the pilot direct SHAQQ rest of route unchanged. ZMA Key West then advised me that ZMA Cigar sector had the hand-off and I switched the pilot to ZMA. Pilots have become remiss and complacent with non-radar procedures and what to do. Every IFR rated pilot is taught how to give a proper non-radar position report. We here in the center have become complacent with not getting proper reports from the pilots. In this case the pilot did not fly the route assigned and flew what he thought he had. The pilot was asked; according to the previous controller telling me; to report SNAKR intersection and he never answered. This should have made the pilot question what position was required to report and check his navigation. Pilots should always do proper non-radar position reports all the time. We got lucky with this one because the W174 area has been going hot and cold all day and was cold at this time. The aircraft entered into the W147 area while it was cold.




Synopsis: ZHU Controller reported a flight that was not flying the correct route.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Piper Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying from ZZZ to SLC IFR; I was given the Cargo 1 Visual approach to Runway 32 (over the top) by SLC Approach 135.5. After my descent from 11;000 ft. to 7;000 ft.; while leveling off at AMENR way point; Tower called traffic at my 12 o'clock and 5 miles at 7;000; Aircraft Y. I assume the pilot was doing a VFR transition north over I-15 which runs directly below the approach path. I did not see the aircraft; however; he reported to see Aircraft X. Tower told me to stay on the profile and he would call my base turn for Runway 32. The profile has you level at 7;000 until DUECE way point. In-between AMENR and DUECE I spotted Aircraft Y at my 1 o'clock slightly lower within 400 ft. heading for a collision course. I immediately performed a climbing left hand turn to avoid the traffic; while he did a left turn at the same time. We narrowly missed each other. I called Tower in my turn to advise them of the deviation for traffic. Finished the flight with no other incident.I would advise that VFR transitions north while the Cargo 1 approach is being used stay below 6;500 ft. MSL; or refused entirely.


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


Synopsis: Pilot reported evasive action due to NMAC on approach.
Date: 201506
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During preflight; I found the Ops Specs to be out of date. I immediately called dispatch and notified them of the issue. I was put on hold and when the dispatcher came back on the line he notified me that the Certificate Chief Pilot had granted permission to fly this flight with the old Ops Specs. I requested a written document that indicated this waiver; and was put on hold again. When the dispatcher came back the second time he gave me the phone number for the Certificate Chief Pilot and told me to call him. When I did; [Certificate Chief Pilot] made it clear; in no uncertain terms; that I did not need written permission and that his word was 'good enough'; and that he had authority to issue this waiver in this case to get the airplane back. I took that as correct and departed. The flight diverted later due to weather; refueled and continued on the same flight number to destination; where the aircraft terminated for the night. I became aware 12 days later in an ALPA email that no one; not even the Certificate Chief Pilot has authority to issue a waiver regarding out of date manuals.I wish I had known that the Chief Pilot cannot issue a waiver regarding this. I also wish that the Certificate Chief Pilot had not pressured me into the flight or told me that he had the authority when; in fact; he did not. I hope to have written documentation that no one can issue a waiver regarding this issue for possible disputes with the Flight Ops department in the future.




Synopsis: EMB175 Captain discovers that the OpSpec aboard his aircraft is out of date and informs the Dispatcher. The Chief Pilot contacts the Captain and authorizes him to operate back to base with the out of date OpSpec. The reporter learns later that the Chief Pilot does not have this authority.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying into Aspen; we went missed because we didn't have the airport environment insight. On the missed approach we were task saturated with the missed approach. We were in addition trying to calculate fuel to see if we could hold for another attempted approach. We decided to hold. Received our holding instruction; and as I as pilot monitoring input the wrong holding instruction into the FMS. I put a SE hold at DBL instead of a NW hold at DBL.During the missed approach in a mountainous terrain airport; we were task saturated; switched frequencies; executing a complicated missed approach; and we were issued a long holding instruction that we read back properly but input improperly into the FMS. We caught our mistake and fixed the hold in the FMS and corrected out holding track. In the future I will ask for radar vectors to catch up with the aircraft inside and outside before asking or accepting a holding clearance. It was due to the task saturation why we made the mistake.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported after a missed approach at ASE; they entered a SE holding pattern into the FMS instead of a NW pattern.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The frequency for FEEDER (AR4); failed. I was working AR1; the adjacent Final Sector; and needed to change Radar sites and expand my range to 'take' AR4 because their frequency was unusable. After 10-12 minutes of chaos; the transition was accomplished; but at least 7 airplanes were 'NORDO' because they were on 124.05 when it failed. It turns out that Tech Ops took 124.05 off the air without coordinating with the correct area (LA Arrivals); and were dismissive of our concerns when they were first notified. There was an obvious mistake; this has been at least the third incident in the last 6 months where Tech Ops made a mistake and there is no accountability. There needs to be more accountability on the part of Tech Ops.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a chaotic situation when Tech Ops failed to follow appropriate protocols when taking one of operational frequencies.
Date: 201901
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Approaching EMMRL on the DSNEE 4 Arrival to SNA; we elected to brief and fly the RNAV Z 20R Approach with clear weather. The approach branches from the arrival at point DSNEE. At that point; the arrival continues to point JWARD with a mandatory altitude of 7;600 feet. The RNAV Z 20R branches on a different track to BONVY with a 6;000 feet mandatory altitude. The 7;600 feet mandatory altitude after the branch point sets an altitude constraint in the FMC and prevents loading the RNAV approach. The approach loads in reverse video. To load and brief the approach requires deleting the clearance limit altitude from the DSNEE 4 and sets the Crew up for altitude crossing non-compliance. This requires the Crew to modify the approach and takes system automation out of the loop in the high traffic; high terrain area northeast of SNA where it is most needed. Additionally; despite requesting RNAV Z on initial contact with Approach; they had to call another frequency for this clearance. We weren't cleared the approach until about three miles prior to the branch point.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported being unable to load the RNAV approach in the FMC because of a mandatory crossing restriction on the arrival.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Distribution
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: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Working Aircraft X at FL380; right engine pressure observed to go in and out of caution range. Oil quantity observed to be zero. Referred to QRH for both conditions observed and decided to divert.Considering weather conditions [at destination] and altitude to be lost decision made to divert (both engines operating). Informed dispatch of situation and diversion via ACARS.[Advised ATC of situation] and proceeded direct to [diversion airport] with normal landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that the right hand engine oil pressure was erratic and the oil quantity was indicating zero and diverting.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As throttles retarded at top of descent; number one engine experienced 6-7 stalls. We followed the QRH and operated at idle for 4-5 minutes. Observed the N1 decaying and EGT rising slowly above 600 degrees. We elected to secure the engine in accordance with the QRH and followed the single engine procedure in the QRH. [Requested priority handling] with Center and the landing was uneventful. [Destination airport] ARFF checked the number one engine after landing and cleared us to proceed. We canceled [priority handling] with Tower and taxied to parking.


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


Synopsis: A300-600 flight crew reported receiving a number of compressor stalls when the #1 throttle was retarded for descent. Engine was shut down in accordance with procedure.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight Attendant reported that faint musty dirty sock odor had grown stronger. No medical attention requested[Captain stated] odor related to contamination of air conditioning pack and suggested proper maintenance.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported being notified by a Flight Attendant of a 'faint musty dirty socks odor' during initial approach.
Date: 201501
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
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
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; MEL; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft has history of oil needing added to left CSD (Constant Speed Drive). Last four flights had write-up of left CSD oil level low. One mentioned CSD in red band by maintenance tech (most likely during aircraft reposition. One additional write-up of excess oil from left engine cowling. Engine was run; no leaks noted; oil cleaned up; and signed off. Clearly here is an aircraft with a known discrepancy (left CSD leaking oil) and maintenance; rather than finding the leak and fixing it; re-fills the oil and releases it for flight. I told maintenance that I was uncomfortable taking the A/C (Aircraft). Had conference call with myself; dispatch; duty pilot; and maintenance control. Maintenance control agreed with my decision to not fly the A/C. We switched to a different aircraft and completed the turn uneventfully.Upon further investigation; I've discovered that A/C was re-assigned to a turn after I refused it. I spoke to him and he stated that upon his return to point of origin; excessive oil was on the left engine cowling and maintenance was looking into it.This A/C should never have been 're-assigned'. It should have been placed in maintenance with the goal of finding the source of the oil leak. In my opinion; this practice is completely unsatisfactory.I expect and demand follow-up regarding the practice of re-dispatching an aircraft that has been deemed unairworthy by a Captain; and a Dispatcher; Duty Pilot; and Maintenance supervisor by implicit concurrence.




Synopsis: Captain refused aircraft due to repeat CSD (Constant Speed Drive) oil leak on left engine. Company reassigned aircraft to another crew which accepted and flew the trip. That crew experienced the same CSD leak.