elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PVU.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Other Flight School
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PVU
ATC / advisory: Tower PVU
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were in the pattern doing touch and goes.  We were doing left traffic for runway 31 at PVU.  We turned base leg and tower told us to do a right 360 for spacing to put us behind an aircraft on an extended final leg.  After we rolled out of the 360 turn on base at approximately 5300 ft MSL I called tower and told him we were re-established on base and ready to turn final.  Tower then said continue northeast and then turn left back in to follow the traffic.  As he was giving that instruction; I looked out to the right and the aircraft was passing right over the top of us approximately 200 ft above us and right on top of us.  There was no lateral separation.  The controller then directed us to fly northeast shortly then turn back to the left and in behind the experimental aircraft.  By then the aircraft had passed over us so we did as instructed and then turned left to line up on final for 31 at PVU.  If we hadn't been instructed to do the 360 turn and just continued downwind further or if the tower controller just put us in front of the traffic; this all may not have happened.  The controller had a jet line up and wait anyway on the runway and the aircraft had to do a go around anyway.   If we were sequenced in front of the aircraft this probably would not have happened or if he just had us extend downwind further instead of having us do a left 360 it likely would have been avoided.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of an NMAC caused by the Tower Controller sequencing traffic and not issuing traffic.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAD.Tower, DC
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Helicopter called me airborne off of [a nearby hospital] inside the Class B. At that time a Large Transport aircraft was rotating off Runway 30 departing. The data tags were overlapped. By the time I identified Helicopter's position I realized that the Large Transport was in close proximity. I called the traffic to Helicopter; he said he had the Large Transport in sight. By that time I could see both aircraft out of the window. I asked Helicopter if they tried calling on the ground and they said yes but they could not reach the Tower. So they said they got airborne and then called. This procedure that allows helicopters to get airborne inside the Class B before calling the Tower needs to be stopped. There is another hospital that is 2 mile final 19R. Helicopters depart these hospitals then call the Tower. Departures and arrivals are often conflicting with them with little to no time to separate them. If the departure had been a heavy or the super; the wake turbulence could have caused a crash.




Synopsis: IAD Tower Controller reported the procedure of allowing air ambulance helicopters to depart nearby hospitals non radar with inability to communicate in Class B creates a collision hazard.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Electrical
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Logbook Entry; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Logbook Entry

Narrative: It was brought to my attention that aircraft XXXXX had 6 take-offs and landings with a possible open write-up; one of which was my flight; ZZZ-ZZZ1.Apparently; aircraft had a APU GEN OFF BUS EICAS message. The Captain at the time ran the QRH procedure; the message cleared and called Maintenance. The Discrepancy write up that was in the maintenance logbook read 'INFO ONLY: APU GEN OFF BUS EICAS MESSAGE DISPLAYED.' And the corrective action read 'INFO ONLY: CLEARED MESSAGE AND RAN QRH PROCEDURE' or something very similar. There seemed to be some confusion between either that Captain and/or the Maintenance personnel on how to proceed with the write up because of the way the Discrepancy and Corrective action blocks reads. The way it was written up is similar to how a Ground Reset Guide item is written up in the logbook.I was unaware of this and when I saw the write up; I didn't catch the mistake in the early morning in MCI. I saw the 'INFO ONLY' portion and figured it was a [Company] procedure in which the fault cleared. I have included a photo of the logbook page of this write up which was sent to me by another Captain.




Synopsis: E170 Captain reported aircraft flew six flights with an open write up.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: The new [procedural checklist] method for the 737 fleet is very poorly conceived; designed; trained; and executed. The training on using this procedural method is totally inadequate; not enough stand-alone training is done to train for this radically different approach to proper checklist accomplishment. [Our company] has limited training for the new procedures but; instead; offers limited 'supplemental' (read: unpaid) materials that poorly demonstrate the procedures and techniques. Over all; the new [checklist procedures] are disjointed; incomplete; poorly conceived and designed; and even more poorly organized; and are; bottom line; unsafe. They should be discontinued immediately and totally redesigned or scrapped altogether.Scrap these poorly conceived; poorly designed; and extremely poorly implemented jokes of procedures and return to the 'tried and true;' time-proven procedures that have worked for my entire career at [this company].




Synopsis: B737-800 pilot reported inadequate training on use of new checklist procedures.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: GA7-Cougar
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was training with a student on an IFR Flight. My student went off course to avoid icing which was a serious safety issue that day. He also had to descend to avoid icing up the wings. The temp was -2 and the clouds were at a low level. We deviated to avoid icing and had very bad signal coverage with Center because of our altitude; [but] we had to act to avoid icing.




Synopsis: GA-7 Instructor Pilot reported he and his student had a track deviation on an IFR flight when they went off course to avoid icing conditions.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X deviating for weather in Sector 44. Aircraft were supposed to be AOB [at or above] FL280 entering ZLA. This aircraft was above military airspace that was active FL300 and below. ZLA refused a hand off because they claimed they were unable to get the aircraft down for landing LAS. Controller called me over asking what she should do. I told the D-Side to call Nellis for a point out descending. Nellis said unable. I told the Radar Controller to declare a weather emergency and descend the aircraft to FL280. We advised Nellis of this. There were no other options. The aircraft was unable to turn due to severe weather and needed to continue forward.ZLA take the aircraft hand off and descend the aircraft when clear of Nellis airspace. In this instance the 3;000 difference was not that big of deal but refusing a hand off was not the best or safest option.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller reports where a ZLA Controller refused to accept the aircraft because of its altitude.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MLU.TRACON, LA
Aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E MLU
ATC / advisory: TRACON MLU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; 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
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were in CENRAP (Center Radar ARTS Presentation) status during event. Local Control had issued Aircraft X to proceed on course and climb and maintain 12;000 feet. Then Aircraft X was transferred to Departure Control (the position I was currently working). Aircraft X came over to me; stating the following: 'Aircraft X WITH YOU ON COURSE AND CLIMBING.' I responded:'Aircraft X; DEPARTURE; CONTINUE YOUR CLIMB.'I erroneously did not verify the Aircraft X's altitude when he initially came to me; so that was first mistake. Then I told him to continue his climb; which was my second mistake. I told him to continue his climb reference the facility being in CENRAP and was awaiting the radar scope to receive a primary target hit so that I would have a method to radar contact him. I did not anticipate the pilot to climb outside of his assigned altitude which was given to him during his takeoff clearance from Local Control. The pilot was radar identified and continued on his flight.I was shortly thereafter relieved from position and gave the new controller the briefing. Then the Aircraft X climbed outside of our airspace and entered into Center's airspace and was shortly NORDO while at 14;000 feet in Center's airspace.I recommend that I shall continue to work as I have when the facility is not in CENRAP and have the pilot verify their altitude if it is not initially given on first contact. I will also never use the term 'CONTINUE YOUR CLIMB'; as it is not proper phraseology and it does not include an altitude limit to the climb.




Synopsis: MLU TRACON Controller used nonstandard phraseology and did not confirm that an aircraft they received was climbing to the correct altitude.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: R90.TRACON, NE
Aircraft: SR22
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was issued an IFR clearance from ZZZ to ZZZ1 with an initial climb to 030.  On departure; the Developmental cleared the aircraft  on course with a climb to 060.  The pilot turned on course but did not read back the on course clearance or the climb to 060.  My attention was taken away from that situation to deal with two other conflicts (converging aircraft).  The CIC pointed out that Aircraft X wasn't climbing; I reissued the climb to 060; but the aircraft was already in a 037 MVA level at 030. Issue RWY heading on departure or a heading/altitude on departure to keep the aircraft clear of high MVA's.  Listen for readback.




Synopsis: R90 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft did not climb fast enough to avoid a lower MVA.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were at the end of Runway 33 at DCA waiting for takeoff. Tower instructed us to line up and wait. As I was proceeding to line up and wait; Tower issued a different clearance to turn to 280 degrees and maintain 3000 ft. after departure. The co-pilot read back the new issued clearance and for some reason thought we were cleared for takeoff. I lined up and stopped. The co-pilot asked if I was ready to go. I asked the co-pilot if we were cleared for takeoff. He responded; yes. Concentrating on positioning the aircraft to line up on the runway as we were issued a new clearance and the heavy traffic on the radio at that time; I thought I might have not heard the Tower clear us for takeoff. I proceeded takeoff roll down the runway when Tower told us to abort. I believe where the miscommunication started was when the Tower issued us a new clearance while we were taxiing onto the runway; to turn to a new heading of 280 degrees and maintain 3000 ft. but did not tell us to continue to hold. After receiving the new clearance; we assumed we were cleared for takeoff. A very serious lesson to be learned here. If you are ever in doubt or unsure of any communication between you and ATC; always verify.  I have verified many times with controllers in my flying career; but this time I did not. And because of that; a terrible outcome could have happened because of it.




Synopsis: BE-200 Captain reported beginning the takeoff roll at DCA without clearance from the Tower.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In rear of Aircraft for Crew meal; First Officer flying the aircraft; came to cockpit and noted Fuel flow needles flickering. Noted fuel flow indicator-as well as Outer tank indicators show zero-however; Inner tanks had good quantity and burning normal-tank to engine; valves green; all ok. Earlier in the flight the outer tanks (both LH & RH) had ECAM message which showed low; however we did not burn from Outers and did not transfer fuel. No fuel leak was indicated; so continued as per checklist. #2; RH engine flamed out. [Advised ATC] and requested divert. ATC gave good vectors and landed uneventful.Aircraft is designed to fly tank to engine and burn from all tanks; thus tank to engine inner tank is good.


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


Synopsis: A300 flight crew reported an engine flamed out during cruise due to possible fuel issue.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
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: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At FL 370 Multiple Lvl 3 aft lower cargo Fire warnings. Declared Emergency; complied with QRH and Diverted to Nearest airport.


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


Synopsis: An MD-11 flight crew diverted to the nearest suitable airport upon receipt of Level three CRG Fire Aft warnings.
Date: 202010
Location: M54.Airport, TN
Weather elements / visibility: Light winds
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZME
ATC / advisory: CTAF M54
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: M54 is an untowered airport with recent heavy flight instruction activity from a nearby college; 2 local flight schools; an active flying club; and flight instructing originating from a nearby Class C airport.  Local custom is Runway 19 is used for light and variable or no wind take off and landing because there is an open field just south of the airport. Just north of the field is a college. When recently flying I politely mentioned the local custom over the radio trying to turn the airport traffic back to using the preferred runway.  A few minutes later I was informed that the AFD (Airport Facility Directory; Chart Supplement) did not mention a preferred runway.  There are still many aircraft on the field flying without radio communication. I think it would be a good idea to publish this local custom in the AFD and post on signage at the departure point of both runways.  Several years ago I had to leave the runway onto the grass while rolling out on 19 to prevent a twin aircraft broadcasting on the wrong frequency landing on Runway 1 from landing on top of me. Had we executed a touch and go we might have had a mid air on climb out.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor recommends publishing preferred runway at local airport.