elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAS.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working LC1; I cleared Aircraft X for takeoff; after Aircraft Y had completed his landing roll I instructed Aircraft Y to hold short of Runway 25R at A7; and I received a proper read back of the required hold short instructions. I then went to work trying to sort out the horrible sequence my ground controller had given me. I was looking at my upcoming departure strips when the ASDE-X alarmed stating 'Runway 25R occupied!' I immediately looked up to see Aircraft Y crossing Runway 25R at A7 while Aircraft X was rolling down Runway 25R at a very high rate of speed; too late to cancel their takeoff clearance. I attempted to key up to resolve the situation; but it was too late to do anything about it. Aircraft X rotated a couple seconds later somewhere between A5 [and] A6 and departed overtop of Aircraft Y still on the runway. I advised Aircraft Y their instructions were to hold short of runway 25R; to which he replied 'yeah we screwed up.'Even if I hadn't had a bad departure sequence; the events happened so fast I'm not sure it would have been caught in a normal scan with the traffic volume at the time.




Synopsis: LAS Tower Controller reports of a runway incursion caused by a pilot who did not hold short as instructed. Departure aircraft had been cleared for takeoff and was rolling when ASDE-X alerted controller of the incident. Controller did not have enough time to react and departing aircraft flew over crossing traffic.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Flight Attendant called and reported a loud bang or pop in the aft galley. We asked if they could smell any fumes or see any smoke. They said no and said they would call us back if they could; and that they would try to figure out what it was. We said we had no unusual indications of any problem. They later called us back and reported that they found a shattered [cigarette] lighter. It was on a food tray inside a food insert that had been warming in an oven in the aft galley. Apparently the heat from the oven expanded any air/gas in the lighter and popped it.




Synopsis: During climbout on a B767; the flight attendants reported hearing a loud noise in the aft galley. Upon investigation; they found that a cigarette lighter had been left on a tray that was warming in the oven; and had burst.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While approaching EWR on the PHILBO3 from the south at 6;000 at the METRO Intersection; NY Controller gave us an instruction to FLY PRESENT HEADING. I responded to that call as it was our call sign. My First Officer was Pilot Flying and followed the instructions as he heard it too.About two minutes later; the Controller asked what procedure we were flying and what our routing was. I informed him of the PRESENT HEADING that he gave us. He said something to the effect that he meant another flight. We were following Aircraft Y. Our call sign was Aircraft X. He then gave us several other vectors and handed us off to another frequency. Nothing else was said about this confusion of aircraft; as it was on the controller and not us.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a track deviation on the PHILBO3 arrival to EWR as the result of ATC Controller confusing similar call signs and issuing clearance to the wrong aircraft.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC; Class C TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were on the localizer for Runway 19 at TEB; level at 2;000 between UNVIL and TUGGZ (approximately 8 miles from the runway). NY Approach handed us off to the tower and as I looked up from the frequency change; we got a TA from a jet inbound to EWR at 1;000 above us (3;000) southeast bound. We saw him at 1:30 and then a second or two later we got a TA from another aircraft at 2:00 at our altitude (2;000); that immediately turned into an RA. The flying pilot climbed and then leveled off in compliance with the TCAS guidance. We both saw the low wing aircraft with pulse lights flashing pass about 400 feet below us.When I queried the tower controller; she said they weren't talking to the other aircraft and that he was operating legally below the Class B outside the Class D. The arrivals into Teterboro are frequently challenging since NY Approach brings us down low far (30-50 miles) from the airport; in close proximity to many small airports. In this case an extension to the Teterboro Class D to accommodate the ILS 19 would be prudent.


Second narrative: The crew was on an IFR flight plan to Teterboro and approaching TEB from the North West for an ILS 19 approach when we received a TA on TCAS; at this time NY Approach called the traffic; a second later we received an RA on the TCAS and followed the command bars for a TCAS CLIMB. The entire event was over in less than 30 seconds; NY explained to the crew over the radio that this is a regular event in that area because technically the airspace below the 3;000 Class B and above TEB class D is a VFR no reporting area. Both aircraft had 400 feet vertical separation during this event.


Synopsis: A Corporate flight crew on the TEB 19 ILS at 2;000 feet received a TCAS TA from an inbound EWR jet at 3;000 feet and a TCAS RA CLIMB from VFR traffic 400 feet below.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared to descend via the arrival.  Approaching an intersection we noticed traffic displayed to our north on our TCAS.  We were descending out of 17;000 feet.  As I queried ATC about the traffic; we received an RA to climb for the traffic.  ATC did not notify us of the traffic.  These arrivals are so heads down for pilots flying the MD-82 that we did not acquire the traffic visually.  I advised ATC of the TCAS RA and that we were climbing as directed by TCAS.  After we were clear of the conflicting aircraft we returned to the assigned altitude restrictions via the arrival.  I informed ATC we were returning to our clearance of 'descending via' This traffic conflict could have been avoided with ATC intervention to maintain our altitude due to traffic.  I'm not knowledgeable of ATC radar systems and maybe this traffic just 'popped up on radar' with no time to manage the conflict.  I will say; the TCAS system functioned great.  I would suggest; based on the last few weeks of flying these arrivals on the MD-82; that anytime the TCAS is not operational the crew should not accept any arrival with a 'descend via' clearance.




Synopsis: MD-82 Captain reported receiving a Resolution Advisory (RA) on a 'descend via' clearance; citing workload in the old technology transports as interfering with their traffic scan.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 0.25
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were set up for an autoland approach to 35R at DEN. All three autopilots were engaged. Weather was 1/4 mile light snow. We were about 4 miles behind an Airbus approaching the outer marker when we encountered wake turbulence. Aircraft rolled about 40 degrees to the left. Captain disengaged the autopilot and rolled back to join the localizer. We determined that we were not in a position to continue the approach so First Officer called the Tower and said we were going around. ATC vectored us around for an approach to 35L. We were cleared to 8;000 FT. We were at flaps 5; 190 KTS. On the downwind leg ATC gave us a heading of 350. When we rolled out Captain noticed that this heading would have us join the localizor after the FAF. Before we had a chance to question the heading; ATC vectored us left to a 170 heading; climb to 8;500 FT. Finally we were instructed to climb to 9;000 FT. ATC was very busy with several aircraft and approaches to 35R; 35L and 34R. There seemed to be some confusion with vectoring us to fit in with the flow. We finally were cleared for the ILS to 35L and landed 6 miles in trail of another plane.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 provided no additional information.]


Synopsis: B757 flight crew encountered wake turbulence in trail of an A320 on approach to DEN. When the resultant roll took them off course they executed a go around and were vectored to another approach.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C SFB
ATC / advisory: Tower SFB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying the VFR closed traffic pattern for Runway 9R at Sanford International; and had requested a full stop landing while on the downwind leg from ATC. I was cleared to land; I do not recall if I was cleared number one; or cleared to land following traffic in the pattern. I began to descend from pattern altitude; and then began my turn to the base leg. Shortly after my turn from downwind to base; I saw traffic on final for Runway 9R at my 11 o'clock; moving from left to right. The traffic was approximately 100 feet below me; and 600 feet at my 11 o'clock; moving through 12 o'clock. I made a sharp left turn back in the direction I was flying on downwind and added full power to maintain altitude and airspeed. Simultaneously; the tower controller told me to extend my downwind leg. A second controller came on frequency told me to immediately climb to 1;500 feet. Once it was established traffic was no longer a factor; I was cleared to land; and the rest of the approach was flown normally.The problem either arose from my own distractedness; and I missed the instruction to follow traffic; or the tower controller failed to advise me of the traffic. I was distracted because I was talking to a passenger; and was not practicing sterile cockpit procedures.




Synopsis: A distracted pilot made a turn for a SFB Runway 9R base but took evasive action at the same time ATC called to issue a turn and climb because of traffic already on final for 9R.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HOU.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B HOU
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After takeoff on the WYLSN5 out of HOU; we were switched to Houston departure. Checked in leaving 3800 feet for 16;000 feet. ATC queried us on the altitude cleared to; we said 16;000 feet. ATC returned and said we were only cleared to 5000 feet. After being told we were cleared to 5000 ft; I set 5000 ft in the alerter leaving approximately 4100 for 5000 feet. We leveled off at 5000 ft. ATC stated that direct to 16;000 feet clearances are never given; usually stop at five. He asked if 5000 was in our Clearance; we stated we received it PDC and only saw the 16;000 ft clearance limit of the departure. He said they have been having problems with PDC clearances out of Hobby with this same exact instance with pilots not seeing the 5000 ft limit. He said he would make note of this and review the PDC. We continued the flight and approximately 15 minutes later was asked to call an 800 number when we landed for a possible navigation deviation. We called after landing and explained the situation we were told that no deviation occurred; but the PDC was apparently incorrectly copied.We were rushed and sidetracked as a crew in HOU with a passenger trip; and both apparently did not see the except maintain 5000 ft in the notes at the end of the PDC after both confirming 16000 ft. We only saw the 16000 ft altitude given as the top of the departure. As a crew we need to slow down and make sure every word has been read on the PDC and copied and entered correctly. It would also be beneficial if ATC reformatted the PDC clearances and standardized them including any changes to a departure altitude towards the top of the clearance where the departure is given so it can be understood easily.


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


Synopsis: Business jet flight crew reported difficulty catching altitude restriction departing HOU on the PDC print out.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I released Aircraft X from IDA shortly after the departure of a preceding aircraft. I had stopped Aircraft X at 080 thinking Aircraft X was proceeding to ZZZ and failed to notice that they were direct ZZZ1. I failed to enter the interim alt in the data block and did not correctly hear him check on climbing to 080. 20 MI south of IDA Aircraft X requested higher. I issued a climb to 170 but by then the aircraft had penetrated an 085 polygon and was several miles into the 089 polygon. Make sure to enter the interim in the data block and verify the departure's routing.




Synopsis: SLC ARTCC Controller reported that an error occurred because he did not enter the interim altitude in the data block of a departure that then entered a lower MOCA/MVA/MIA/MSA/MEA.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final 28R; First Officer called gear down; flaps 15; [and] landing check. Approach sent us over to tower. Wing body overheat light on left side illuminated. Completed normal landing procedures then got out QRH for wing body overheat. Accomplished QRH procedure by 500 feet. Landed 28R. After clearing the runway; we realized that we never switched over to tower frequency. [We] called tower; [and] they said they cleared us to land and gave us a green light.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported neglecting to call the tower for landing clearance while distracted on final approach by a wing body overheat warning.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was the last leg of a 3 day trip with show times at or before 0500 local. While descending on the Ironman arrival into LAX; we were vectored off the arrival and instructed to descend to FL240 for traffic. Shortly after beginning the descent and turning to the assigned heading; we were cleared to a further fix on the arrival and told to resume the Ironman arrival.  Because we were lower than normal as a result of the early descent clearance; we discussed vertical navigation options and elected to do a 'vertical direct to' the assigned point. The non-flying pilot entered the 'vertical direct to' and we both went through the points in the FMS to ensure all projected crossing altitudes were within STAR restrictions and agreed that they were. In hindsight; I did notice that all the normally visible waypoint altitude depictions on my vertical profile went away but was either too busy or tired to question it. The aircraft intercepted its calculated descent profile and begin descending on profile. Shortly afterwards; a new ATC sector asked about our altitude and questioned our descent profile; instructing us to level at FL190 until intercepting the Ironman arrival. We quickly assessed the situation and reloaded the arrival to ensure everything was reset; then intercepted the new descent profile and continued without incident.Fatigue and complacency strike once again. As Flying Pilot; I should have been carefully comparing our actual altitude to the STAR and not relying so much on a depicted FMS vertical profile. Being relatively new to the airplane; I am still intently watching the automation to further my understanding of its capabilities and limitations but that can't be done at the expense of the basics.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported overshooting a crossing restriction on arrival to LAX.