elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sabreliner 40
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Local military authority recently instituted new arrival procedures returning to Navy Pensacola; (NPA); instituted an arrival fix of JERYS Intersection which is a GPS fix. T-39 aircraft are a slant 'Alpha' aircraft and being forced to navigate to a GPS point. On return Houston told us to proceed direct to JERYS Intersection. We began our TACAN point to point unwinded to that fix with our initial heading utilizing the TACAN fix the military had provided us. Houston asked us if we were direct JERYS and we replied we were. We made our first correction for wind while trying to conduct training with the student on point to point navigation. Again Houston asked us if we were direct JERYS because they showed we were going to miss it by 5 miles. We were still 50 miles away from JERYS at the time and made another correction. Told the Controller we were a Slant Alpha aircraft proceeding to a GPS point and our navigation would not be as fine as a GPS equipped aircraft. Controller responded the military said we could do this. Told him we were doing the best we could with our on board equipment. He said he would bring it up through his airspace management coordinator with the military and I told him I would do the same on our end. If this procedure is going to continue as published; then Houston needs to understand that a Slant Alpha (TACAN only) aircraft's navigation is not going to be as fine as a GPS aircraft especially on point to point navigation. If an agreement can not be reached with Houston and the military on this; then we need to return to our old procedure of TRADR Intersection which is a TACAN fix.




Synopsis: Military aircraft inbound to NPA with slant ALPHA equipment was cleared direct to a newly developed GPS fix and then questioned by ATC reference the less than accurate track being flown.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Safety issues: 1) cannot fly speeds required on arrivals and departure as noted -- unable 250 KTS on PC 12; CE 510 and CE 525 aircraft that I fly.  If we tell ATC that we cannot meet the restriction; should they not note it to the other controller's along the route?  We find that they want us to inform the next controller.  Pilots are taught once we notify a controller that is all that is required. 2) Note all speed restrictions and altitudes in Bold Black Letters [and] not hide them on second pages in notes due to the excessive ATC points on the plates in a small area on both arrivals and departures. 3) On the arrival into MEM when the arrival is loaded; which we were cleared for in our flight plan we received at OSH. The flight plan read OSH-DLL-PLL-DYR-WLDER7.MEM. We entered the flight plan in our Garmin 530W avionics and it needed to know the landing runway in order to proceed with the flight plan entry but with variable winds we just selected Runway 18 and it entered the arrival however we noticed that not all of the points were listed on the arrival and only after we changed the runway to Runway 36 did we see all of the points on the arrival and altitudes. The name of the game is confusion in the cockpit and now also with altitudes that can be chosen up to the pilots between the minimum and maximum at different points. These are new to most pilots and we have not seen any explanation by the FAA therefore we have to question the controllers who also do not seem to understand. 4) The new arrival and departure procedures were published without prior knowledge of the aviation community especially the pilots and terminology questionable to how the pilots are going to fly and the differences with ATC understanding. For example to RNAV to a point it means to fly direct to the point. As for the controller he expects us to fly the departure as published. 5) Safety issues have been forgotten with additional procedures that have been moved to the cockpit in the most critical time of being aware of other traffic (see and avoid) flying into congested airports.




Synopsis: PC12 Captain who also flys CE510 and CE525 aircraft; laments the current state of the ATC system with complex arrival and departure procedures make safe operations difficult for a single pilot crew.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Tower SEA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When checking in with SEA Tower; Tower told us 'Cleared to land on [Runway] 34L'; and he then asked us which gate we were parking at. We then heard him ask every other aircraft the same thing. Somebody said that's not important right now (which I wholeheartedly agree with); but Tower insisted that it was. I know they want to make their runway exit and taxi plan but asking us which gate we're going to is not necessary; and it's a huge distraction at a critical part of the flight. We're trying to complete our landing check; make sure we're landing on the correct runway; and flying the jet. I don't want my First Officer looking up a gate; or being distracted away from his monitoring duties; and I don't want that for myself when I'm the monitoring pilot. Another thing that SEA Tower is famous for is giving taxi and/or runway hold short instructions while we're slowing through 100 kts. after landing. That also is a critical time; and we're often transferring controls right about then. Tower needs to WAIT until the aircraft is clear or almost clear of the runway and SLOWED down before they start issuing instructions. Nothing further. Educate the tower controllers on critical phases of flight and the their taxi plan is NOT critical. They need to understand that they are there to help the pilots; but instead they're a huge distraction.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported SEA Tower Controllers were requesting gate information during a critical phase of flight. The reporter stated SEA Tower routinely transmits instructions during critical phases of flight.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ALS.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Police / Security Involved; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Descending into ALS we were 30 miles out at 17;000-18;000 feet and noticed a laser pointed from the town in our direction. We notified Center about the laser. We continued towards the airport for a visual landing on Runway 20. Conditions were VMC; [and] about 1.5 NM from the runway we were hit with the laser in the cockpit. I was temporarily blinded; then the Captain was blinded shortly after. We went missed and tried to coordinate with Center where the light was coming from to pass on to law enforcement. We circled around and landed safely on Runway 20.  I was temporary blinded; no other issues. Captain had discomfort in right eye; but no other issues.




Synopsis: PC12 First Officer reported that both the Captain and First Officer experienced temporary blindness from a laser attack on final approach to ALS.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were held high and vectored north by ATC to gain separation to preceding aircraft. Cleared direct FERGI at 6.0 and told to slow prior to continuing descent; cleared RNAV Approach. Very high at FERGI; set 2600 ft in altitude and continued descent to try to regain VNAV. Still high passing DARIC; set 1700 ft for GREYZ; intercepted VNAV prior to GREYZ and tried to select VNAV without it engaging. Then recruised the box and reselected VNAV.I called LNAV/VNAV PATH and selected zero for altitude. We were VMC with scattered rain showers. The glidepath at SETOC appeared correct; but by FONVI the PM (Pilot Monitoring) said we appeared low. He was looking out the right side at the building along the river. That caused me to look outside and then try to crosscheck the deviation pointers. I deselected the autopilot and started to level the aircraft. I heard the terrain alert and I heard 'Obstacle'; while hand flying the approach. We continued the approach and landed. At the gate; I asked what alert the PM heard. I heard 'Obstacle'; but did not hear 'Caution' or 'Pull Up'. He stated that he thought he heard 'Caution; Caution; Terrain' followed immediately by 'Obstacle Pull Up'. We discussed the difference between them. I believe that we should have followed procedures for any PULL UP and gone around.




Synopsis: A Heavy Transport Flight Crew were initially very high on an RNAV Approach. They aggressively caught up and then flew through the profile. The Captain then heard a terrain alert and then 'Obstacle'. He continued the approach and landed. The co-pilot had heard 'Obstacle; Pull UP'. The Captain concluded that he should have gone around.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
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: Fuel Storage System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: 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; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon reaching cruise altitude of FL 340; we noticed a growing fuel imbalance between the main fuel tanks (no fuel in the center tank). As the left main tank quantity was decreasing more rapidly than the right; I had the FO (First Officer) go to the cabin for a visual inspection of the area around the left engine. He returned to the flight deck and reported nothing unusual. All other flight deck switches and indications were normal.Given the rate of the growing imbalance; approaching 700 lbs less in the left versus right tank; we decided to commence the Fuel Imbalance QRH checklist. As the checklist would direct a shutdown of the #1 engine; we requested priority handling with Center and began a diversion to ZZZ. We completed the checklist as we descended; accomplished a single-engine landing; and proceeded to the gate otherwise uneventfully.


Second narrative: Upon reaching FL 340 cruise altitude; the Captain noticed that the left fuel indicator showed approximately 500 lbs less than the right tank. We also noticed that the left fuel indications (quantity and lbs) were decreasing faster than the right indications. It was a ferry flight with only the two Pilots and two FAs (Flight Attendants) onboard; so the Captain had me go to the rear and look for indications of fuel leak. Using the wing lights and a flashlight I carry I was unable to see any loss of fuel occurring.Upon returning to the flight deck; the Captain had the QRH out and was looking at the procedure. At this time it reached its max imbalance of 700 lbs. We executed the QRH checklist. It required the shutdown of the left engine. The Captain coordinated with ATC and requested priority handling for fuel; and we diverted to ZZZ. The descent; approach; and landing were uneventful. We executed the QRH until the procedure was complete.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported a growing fuel imbalance during cruise and the subsequent decision for an in-flight engine shut down and diversion to another airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Chart Or Publication; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Flight was filed for the SFO 9 departure; but departures were being conducted off of Runways 28L/R so received a Revised Segment showing the CUIT4 SID.  Since I have been flying out of the airport for over 30 years; I looked over at the hill on the departure routing and it was obscured.  Previously; the hill had to visible for terrain avoidance (approximate 1100 foot ceiling).  I contacted clearance and they informed me that the ceiling/visibility requirement had been deleted and a minimum climb gradient had been substituted.  There is no mention of the change or the ability to meet the gradient in the airport advisory page.  I contacted Dispatch and we discussed the situation.  I chose; and the Dispatcher agreed; to decline the CUIT4 SID and instead flew the SFO9 SID straight out through the gap.  Since I can only speculate based on my experience; it appears that the A321 cannot meet a 535 feet per mile or 560 feet per mile gradient at 205;000 lbs with a turn after departure. There appears to have been a procedural change with the SID in question which went unnoticed.  No climb performance/gradient information is provided on the airport advisory page as well.  This leaves the crew with no information with which to make any sort of informed decision regarding aircraft performance.




Synopsis: A321 Captain notes that the requirement for the hill to be visible departing Runway's 28L/R on the CUIT4 from SFO has been deleted and replaced with a minimum climb gradient.  His company issued airport briefing page does not discuss this issue and he does not believe his aircraft is capable of the climb rate required.   The SFO9 is requested instead.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G650
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight departed and while in cruise flight FL430; .90 Mach; and smooth air we experienced rudder control failure. After performing the appropriate aircraft checklist we continued on and landed at our filed destination with no issues. Maintenance is currently inspecting the aircraft to determine the cause of the rudder failure.


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


Synopsis: G650 flight crew reported rudder failure during cruise. The flight continued to its destination.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was alerted this morning that we had flown a CRJ-200 aircraft with an improperly installed nose wheel tire.  I was told that the right tire was installed incorrectly with the chines facing inward instead of outward.  There was no noticeable change in the aircraft handling on the ground.  Although I did not do the walk around on this flight; there may have been some factors that allowed us to depart with the nose tire incorrectly installed.  The airplane was delayed and there was some time pressure to get back on schedule.  I think the tug was already hooked up to the nose wheel as well and that may have made it more difficult to notice that the wheel was installed incorrectly.  In a discussion after the fact we both realized the function of the chines and how they should have been installed; so this was most likely an oversight error.  This incident is an important reminder that attention to detail; particularly during the preflight; is always essential.




Synopsis: A Captain was informed he had flown a CRJ-200 aircraft with the Right nose wheel tire improperly installed. The chine (tire ring) was found facing inward instead of outward. Pilot noted certain factors may have contributed to the missed chine position that included the aircraft was already delayed; time pressure to get back on schedule and the aircraft tug was already connected to the nose gear.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CVG.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxiing to the gate at night I saw an object out of the corner of my left eye on the ground close in to the aircraft. I immediately applied firm braking pressure to bring the aircraft to a halt. When I looked down I saw a silver hard sided roller bag on the ground immediately adjacent to the aircraft. I shut down the #1 engine. I spoke to the flight attendants to inform them of what was going on. We called to have to bag removed as I could not taxi to avoid it. Baggage Handler crossing the adjacent taxiway saw the situation and removed the bag. We subsequently taxied to the gate without incident.The ramp lighting was insufficient to see the bag at a far distance additionally our taxi lights are not that great on many aircraft. This contributed to not seeing the bag until in close.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported baggage was left in the gate area and obstructed his path of taxi into the parking spot.