elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B727-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff; crew noticed all cockpit lights flickering. On inspection; found Number 3 generator with excessive kilowatt reading. Shortly after; Number 2 generator failed with an annunciation of 'over excitation' shortly after the AC bus suffered phase imbalance and tripped all three bus tie breaker. This was followed by numerous circuit breakers popping and the failure of the Number 3 generator with a three light trip. ATC was contacted and the decision was made to declare an emergency and return the aircraft to the departure airport for further inspection. On the subsequent approach and landing further breakers popped and accordingly further systems were lost. The decision to reengage the Number 1 bus tie breaker was made on final approach to facilitate sufficient systems to complete a safe approach and landing. No further incidents occurred. The apparent cause was a mechanical failure of the Number 3 generator system; accompanied by the mechanical failure of the remaining generators to protect themselves from the kilowatt spike caused by the Number 3 generator.




Synopsis: A B727's Number 3 Generator failed mechanically resulting in all three bus tie breakers opening and numerous other breakers popping. An emergency was declared while the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Being vectored onto the final approach course 26R; we had a brief encounter with a wake turbulence. And then again during the landing flare to the point where it was becoming a problem to maintain a stabilized approach path above the runway in ground effect. Did not have time to notify air traffic control that this happened. I don't know if we were behind a heavy previous arrival. But we were getting really close to having to go around from the landing flare. The roll motion was becoming such a problem with keeping the aircraft stabilized; and aligned with the runway. I was actually shocked that we touchdown as smooth as we did. I asked the pilot flying if he thought that was a bit unusual his statement was 'I was just one more jolt away from going around'. Wake turbulence encounters in Atlanta are becoming an every week problem; more like almost every inbound leg into Atlanta problem. Also it seems there is little consideration given to the fact that we may be departing behind something that might be a threat as well. I'm beginning to think that there's nothing much going to be done about it until something serious happens. Often the wake encounter threats are not much of a problem if there's sufficient crosswind push the wake away from trailing aircraft; from my experience it does not take much to all. However I've learned that this is still a problem at some point on the arrival or departure procedure. For example a crosswind on the departure runways will clear you of the wake threat for takeoff; but might present a very real problem in trail of a heavy navigating to a point; to the same on that departure or arrival. Especially if it's a direct head; or tailwind now.

Callback: Reporter stated wake encounters in ATL are becoming far too frequent and he recommended a change to arrival and departure procedures to increase spacing.



Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on final approach into ATL.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MRI.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D MRI
ATC / advisory: Tower MRI
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was landing Runway 34 while Aircraft Y was departing Runway 25.  Due to newly implemented converging runway rules; this was a loss of separation.   Local Control (LC) tried to control the situation by withholding landing clearance; but did not react quickly enough to resolve the situation.  At the point the Local Controller realized separation did not exist; they allowed Aircraft X to land Runway 34 rather than send the aircraft around and into Aircraft Y. LC also tried to offset Aircraft Y; which pilot did not comply and would not have resolved the situation.  Additionally; Aircraft X did not fly the approach to Runway 34 as published and thus shortened his time to the runway and LC did not see the aircraft cut the corner.  FLM alerted LC that the aircraft was cutting the corner; the expectation was the controller would square the aircraft's final or turn the aircraft east to land Runway 25; instead the controller cleared the aircraft to land.  At that point; the aircraft was low on final and any evasive maneuvers would have been too dangerous.  Local Controller disputed the loss of separation with the FLM; they believed the departing aircraft Aircraft Y was through the intersection prior to Aircraft X crossing the Runway 34 threshold.  As the FLM; I saw the aircraft was still over the Runway Safety Area when the aircraft landed.  The controller working Ground Control when questioned appeared to agree with the FLM; but did not want to dispute what the Local Controller said. This is the first event since implementation of new rules; a good opportunity to use this in [this] facility is to instruct the controllers to prevent events from happening in the future.  Also; the misapplication of offsetting the runway should be addressed.  The union has been briefing the facility on these new changes.  The FLM asked the union to put out a General Announcement in CEDAR addressing; that telling an aircraft to offset when departing will not fix this issue.




Synopsis: MRI Tower FLM describes operational error due to miss use of the new converging runway rules.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Weather dictated that IFR arrival aircraft be vectored at least 2 miles outside the approach gate. The safest MVA at that point for aircraft on a right base to final is 3;700 FT. This altitude was blocked by a VFR aircraft eastbound at 3;500 FT; so I descended Air Carrier X to 3;000 FT. This is a safe altitude as long as the arrival intercepts the final. After issuing traffic to both Air Carrier X and the VFR aircraft; I turned Air Carrier X to heading 180 degrees to intercept the final approach course. His turn took him through the localizer; so I corrected his heading and issued him an immediate right turn to 220 to intercept. When I questioned the pilot's turn rate he replied; 'Standard; but we were a little slow on our turn' or something like that. I guess it would have been better for Air Carrier X to intercept above glide slope (4;000 FT) in order to stay above the VFR aircraft in this case. It would have been tedious to try to move the VFR out of the way of Air Carrier X as there were additional aircraft inbound as well. Since the MVA's in this area were raised; this 'spill-out' occurs fairly frequently. We are diligent in trying to prevent it from occurring; but occasionally it still does.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a below MVA event when an Air Carrier aircraft was being separated from VFR traffic; turned to intercept localizer; but failed to capture ending up in a lower MVA area.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp CLT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Ramp; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Ramp Control cleared us to push straight back which we did. After taxi checklist was complete the FO (First Officer) requested taxi instructions. Ramp Control said; 'Cleared to turn left and proceed to Spot XX.' I visually cleared left as far as I could see and saw no aircraft. When turning left I stopped the aircraft immediately when I saw us turning into a line [of] aircraft. They swerved to the left to avoid us. I had no chance to see aircraft coming behind me and had to rely solely on Ramp Control to be my eyes behind me. When the FO queried the unsafe taxi instructions the Ramp Controller replied back; 'It happens.'Relied entirely on Ramp Controller to be my eyes behind the aircraft.Please ask the Ramp Controller to realize we can't see behind us. We should not have been cleared to taxi with the line of aircraft behind us.




Synopsis: Captain reported that the push back crew did not allow a line of taxiing aircraft to pass by and forced the aircraft to deviate to the left to avoid collisions with his aircraft.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon departing [Runway] 24L in ZZZZ I called 'positive rate; gear up'. The First Officer selected the gear handle to up. A couple seconds after selecting it to up; we both heard a loud bang that came from somewhere behind the cockpit. No adverse flight conditions were noticed nor were there any airframe vibrations. The gear retracted normally as did the flaps. The First Officer and I began discussing what might have caused the noise and narrowed it down to one of two potential problems. Either a blown tire or a weight shift. I gave all PF and PM duties to the First Officer and contacted the flight attendants to see if they could better locate where the noise had come from. None of the flight attendants reported hearing any noise. We retracted flaps on schedule and continued on our assigned route. Once clearing 10;000 feet; I contacted Dispatch and was patched through to [Maintenance Control]. I then requested that the [Chief Pilot] be included in the conversation. Without any of us really knowing for sure what the problem was or if there even was one; we all came to the same conclusion that the safest course of action would be to [advise ATC] in ZZZ. The [Chief Pilot] contacted ZZZZ to see if there was any debris on the runway and there was not. As we checked on with Center; I [advised ATC] for a possible blown tire anyways. We had a normal landing and taxied to the gate under our own power after confirming with ARFF that everything appeared normal. Upon inspection at the gate a Ramp Supervisor noted that cargo in the aft baggage compartment was not loaded properly and that is was most likely a weight shift that made the noise. The ZZZZ ground crew appeared to be training what appeared to be new hire employees but nobody told us if that was the case.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported 'loud bang' after selecting gear up on departure. No adverse flight conditions were noticed.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B787-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics Navigation and Safety
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On final approach to the ILS Runway XXR; we were given direct to ZZZZZ (Outer Marker) at 1800 ft. and were told that we were cleared for the ILS Runway XXR approach. The ILS had been earlier identified as valid (IZZZ). At that point we were approximately 7 miles from ZZZZZ; and the PF (Pilot Flying) armed the Approach (APP button). The autopilot was engaged. At this point the LOC immediately captured the LOC. I was the PM (Pilot Monitoring) and felt at this point that the LOC captured very early given our 45 degree intercept to the LOC and still had another 7 miles to go before the LOC should have been captured. We had set 1800 ft. (Outer Marker altitude) in the MCP. Somewhere along the way; the Glide Slope captured and also commanded the airplane to descend below the 3 degree glide path. As we got lower to approximately 1350 ft. and still not as yet at ZZZZZ; I mentioned to the PF that I felt that we were low. At this point; the PF disconnected the A/P and began a gentle ascent back to the Outer Marker altitude of 1800 ft. ATC subsequently advised us of a 'Low Altitude Alert'. Once we reached ZZZZZ; the PF joined a normal and stable descent to an uneventful landing.After engine shutdown at ZZZ at the gate; I discussed this event at length with the PM. Neither he nor I understood why the automation led us astray in this manner. I was told that we had done everything correctly.....A/P; A/T's were on; APP was engaged; ILS identified correctly. The team is also at a loss for how this event occurred given the data that they received from our aircraft onboard avionics readouts. Both the PF and I are relatively new on the B787; so we are unaware if other B787 pilots have experienced this type of occurrence. I hope to ask around the B787 training team and associated check airman for more possible information of similar events happening to other B787 pilots.Further look into B787 avionic ILS malfunctions related to capturing the LOC/G/S and that relationship to the altitude set in the MCP (Mode Control Panel).




Synopsis: B787 Captain reported avionics malfunction during approach to land.
Date: 201710
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was out when the Captain called me requesting Takeoff (TO) Data due to a [computer] Error. (The Chief's had sent out a message prior indicating there were issues with flights getting [computer] Errors). The Captain gave me the parameters he wanted the takeoff data for; and requested I send it to the printer. He asked for [the] runway; Anti-ice on; Wet; Zero Fuel Eight (ZFW) 122.3. We hung up; and I went to calculate the TO Data. I entered the flight; reactivated the release; updated the ZFW on the Flight Tab; Calculated the flight; and went to the Takeoff Weight (TOW) button to calculate the TO Data message which I then sent to the crew. After sending the message; I realized that assumed weight on the TO Data message seemed off. I checked the weights message to see what the TOG should have been. The TOG was approximately 1300 pounds above the assumed weight on the TO Data Message. I quickly sent a message to the crew asking them to double check the weight on the TO Data Message and asked them to confirm their TOG. Within a minute of sending that message the Aircraft took-off. As I continued to investigate why the there was a discrepancy; I realized that when I calculated the flight I forgot to set the Target Window to BLOCKF. Therefore; when I updated the ZFW (which was a several thousand pound decrease); it decreased my planned fuel and therefore decreased my TOG. Normally when calculating a TO Data Message; the crew tells me the TOG they want me to run it for; not the ZFW. In the future when calculating a TO Data message; I will always ask the crew to confirm what TOG they want it for; and will double check it against the weights message to ensure accuracy.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported an error when imputing flight data and forgot to set the Target Window. The updated Zero Fuel Weight decreased the planned fuel and therefore decreased the Take-off Gross Weight.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Staffing; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The session I worked before this one was unusually long. A large line of thunderstorms cut across several states from the southwest to the northeast. INK-H had a gap in the line through which many aircraft were deviating. The Conflict Alert went off between the two aircraft at the same time an Air Carrier called requesting higher. I climbed the other aircraft; and then turned Air Carrier X forty degrees left. This turned Air Carrier X out of the wind; but the wind was only about 20 KTS. Air Carrier X had about a forty knot overtake on Air Carrier Y. Air Carrier Y requested a right deviation which I was unable due to traffic. Air Carrier Y requested FL390. After coordination was completed with LEE-H; I climbed Air Carrier Y to FL370. It was clear it was going to be close; so I asked Air Carrier X if he was on the new heading. He said he was and reported the heading. Separation was lost. Keep priorities in place. When the Conflict Alert went off; I should have turned Air Carrier X and then went back and climbed the first Air Carrier. Give turns sufficient to maintain separation. I should have used a turn of no less than fifty degrees with that much of an over take. Keep working the problem. Rather than ask Air Carrier X if he was on the new heading I should have issued another clearance that would ensure separation. Provide adequate staffing so that controllers do not go over two hours on position especially during a severe weather event.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller described a loss of separation event when attempts to provide weather deviations resulted in a conflict.