elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were descending on the JANNY5 Arrival.  At the KOPLE waypoint; we were given 'Direct JANNY at 8;000' by ATC.  We began our descent with Joshua Approach.  Around the JANNY waypoint; we were transferred to SoCal Approach for terminal instructions to Burbank airport. The controller initially gave us a 'descend 7;000' instruction which was followed shortly thereafter with a 'descend 5;000' this descent was well prior to the usual instructions given to Aircraft X from this location.  The crew complied with all instructions from ATC.  We were receiving vectors to intercept the ILS-Z Runway 8 Approach into Burbank.  We became aware that the controller was vectoring us to intercept the localizer between the SILEX and BUDDE intersection.  While approaching from the north at 5;000 ft MSL; we were heading over one of the small mountains northwest of Burbank Airport.  We were vectored near the highest point on that hill which is charted at 3;734 ft.  While going over the hill the aircraft gave us a 'TERRAIN; TERRAIN; PULL UP.' I looked at the RA as the first 'TERRAIN' was enunciated; and saw the RA indicator show around 1;500 feet; then jumped immediately to 2;500 feet.  The warning was only given once by the aircraft.  The PF (Pilot Flying); Captain; reported not seeing any altitude indication on the RA.  We continued the approach and the remainder of the flight was uneventful.  We aren't sure whether it was an erroneous aircraft indication or if ATC may have descended us a little too low for that sector. Clarify with ATC on altitude assigned and whether assigned altitude is appropriate for sector.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a GPWS alarm while flying into the Burbank airport.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On a climb to FL230 Denver center called traffic at FL240 converging. We were in marginal VFR due to smoke and did not have the traffic in sight until he was flying over us. The autopilot and autothrottle were engaged in VNAV and the aircraft was leveling at FL230 when we received a reduce vertical speed RA at FL227. I disconnected all automation and leveled the airplane at FL228 per RA pitch commands on the Primary Flight Display. The TCAS showed the other aircraft 1;100 feet above us at that point. When the traffic cleared. I climbed to FL230 and we reported the incident to ATC.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported an airborne conflict with a small transport aircraft during climbout.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A109 All Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Start
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a previous flight; I experienced an over torque; but considered it at the time to be 'within limits' and after helping to unload the critical patient; I neglected to check the displays upon shutdown. The crew was awakened for another flight. I rushed through my start sequence and apparently didn't notice or comprehend the Exceedance Alert on the first screen as I jumped to the AUX page to monitor battery voltage and amps during the start. It was only on the second start when I already had the crew and patient on board; that I noticed the exceedance. I quickly checked the values; (XMSN torque 109% for 1 second); determined them to be within limits (up to 107% for 6 second; 110% maximum) and elected to continue the flight and notify Maintenance upon completion of the flight. In hindsight; I let the self-imposed pressures of completing the mission cloud my judgment and I should have contacted Maintenance when I noticed the exceedance and sent the medical team and their patient on by other means; not flying the aircraft until it had been inspected and released by Maintenance. I might be able to rationalize the first time I missed the exceedance annunciation; but should have followed a different course of action once I recognized it.




Synopsis: A109 helicopter pilot experienced an over torque on engine start but did not notice the Exceedance Alert until the second start after a patient had already been loaded for transport. Pilot completed the mission; but later had second thoughts about flying without a maintenance inspection and release.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The cockpit door opened during takeoff. A Flight Attendant closed it. It kept reopening so at 10;000 B Flight Attendant came to assist A Flight Attendant and keep the cockpit safe. The Captain asked us to push a cart against the door and make our clear zone barrier. They couldn't get it to lock so we proceeded to divert to ZZZ The Captain had us stay up front until imminent landing and then I went back to my jump seat for landing. The passengers were informed and asked to remain seated. The few that couldn't hold their bladders used the back. Luckily upon landing in ZZZ the gate agent and operations already had a gate and plane swap ready for us. Would have been a faster swap had we not had an aisle chair passenger.Fix these planes. They're also extremely hot.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Flight Attendant reported that the cabin door opened during takeoff. The crew was unable to close and lock the door; so they diverted and a plane swap was done.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I took a verbal point out from the X sector. The aircraft went through my airspace and was handed to the Y sector. Z Sector controller called and said they had traffic for the pointed out aircraft. I said I took a point out. I tried to figure out who was speaking to the aircraft. Sector X had just opened and the rides were horrible; that is the reason for the abnormal descent on the Toronto lander. I also heard that another sector had just split into separate sectors also (the low sectors) which I believe also accounted for some confusion. Z Sector did not get a point out on the aircraft descending and they had traffic for the pointed out aircraft. From X Sector that is a normal practice to point aircraft out in that area out to Y Sector and go straight to Z Sector. I'm guessing with the bad rides the controller got unexpectedly busy; it looked that way from my sector.I don't have any recommendations; we usually hand the aircraft to Brecksville; not on to the low side.




Synopsis: One sector pointed out an aircraft to another sector and handed it off to the subsequent sector. The sector the aircraft was being handed off to had conflicting traffic and attempted to coordinate control instructions to the Controller working the aircraft. Due to weather complexities; sectors that were combined were being split to alleviate the workload. In the ensuing confusion of closed sectors being opened and busy traffic; the aircraft was not pointed out to one of the newly opened sectors.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound to DAL; we were given; 'direct NITER; maintain 4;000; jet traffic 11 o'clock; 4;500 FT; traffic one o'clock; Cessna 172 at 3;500 FT.' After passing the other jet; we were asked if we saw the field and replied we did. We were then cleared; '...no further left than 070; join the final at or outside NITER; cleared visual 13L.' We acknowledged and continued direct NITER. The Controller replied; 'Cessna traffic one o'clock; three miles has you in sight remaining south of your course.' The First Officer called for landing gear down and flaps 15; and began a descent out of four. We immediately received a RA with a descend command. I looked at the attitude indicator and we were already pitched down out of the red danger zone. The Controller called traffic one o'clock 1/4 mile. The RA had stopped and we saw the traffic off our right. We continued the approach and landed uneventfully.


Second narrative: In hindsight; I should have remained at 4;000 FT until either we acquired the Skyhawk visually; or ATC ensured us we were clear.


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew responded to a TCAS RA while descending into DAL.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LBB.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C LBB
ATC / advisory: TRACON LBB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Being controlled by Lubbock Approach; we were being vectored for a visual approach. We called the airport in sight; but were not cleared due to a small aircraft 10 miles north of the field flying southeast. We then were about 7 NM NE of the airport flying a 260 heading perpendicular to final approach course. We were notified of the traffic; but never saw them throughout the entire encounter. We were cleared down to 5;000 feet and the small aircraft was to maintain VFR at or below 4;500. The small aircraft  called us in sight and Lubbock Approach told them to maintain visual separation. We were then cleared the visual approach for RWY 17R; and transferred to Tower frequency. After switching to Tower and flying approximately a 45 degree intercept to a 3 NM final; I noticed on TCAS that the small aircraft traffic looked to have turned to fly directly underneath us. At this point traffic was about 2-3 o' clock at 1-2 miles and approximately 500 feet below us. I began calling out the traffic's altitude in reference to ours to my First Officer (Pilot Flying). I also commanded that he leveled off our descent. When passing directly under us according to TCAS the traffic was only 200 feet below us. Then directly off our left only 100 feet below us. During all of this; we somehow DID NOT get a TA or an RA. We continued our visual approach and landed without any irregularities. After arriving at the gate; I called Approach to complain in which they replied he had us in sight and the only amount of separation that is required is just visual separation. Therefore; no regulations were broken. However; I felt unsafe and if a passenger had seen traffic passing below us with minimal separation; it does not reflect well on the company or 121 industry as a whole.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported an NMAC with a small aircraft on approach to LBB airport.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: MD-11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Beginning the BLUZZ1 Arrival into MEM; we were cleared to descend from 36;000 to 30;000.  While descending; we encountered moderate wake turbulence twice from an MD-11 15 miles ahead.  The Captain as pilot monitoring requested a heading 10 degrees right to avoid the wake turbulence.  ATC re-cleared us direct BLUZZ when able; and to descend via the arrival.  I briefed that I follow the VPI (Vertical Path Indicator) as habit on ODP (Optimized Descent Profile) arrivals; and waited until the VPI carrot came alive to begin descent.  While we met BLUZZ below 23000; as soon as we crossed the fix the FMS messaged 'max grade unable next altitude.'  We advised ATC we were unable to cross the COPEN fix at 10000.  ATC handed us off to approach; who gave us a vector to join the approach to 18L.Distance from BLUZZ to COPEN is 9.7 NM.  We were unable to lose 13000 FT in that distance; and later realized the VPI guidance from the FMS guided properly to BLUZZ; but for some reason did not factor descent to COPEN.  Threat:  The moderate wake turbulence disconnected the autopilot and distracted us from the arrival. Errors:  I as pilot flying did not maintain situational awareness on the arrival and backup the FMS with mental math to descend to the first hard altitude of 10;000 ft.  I went along with the FMS guidance without making sure it was accurate.I will still descend using VPI guidance from the VNAV; but back it up with mental math verifying that we will hit all descend via windows and make the first hard Altitude.  I will no longer trust the FMS to give proper guidance; especially on arrivals that branch off multiple lateral paths from one fix; such as BLUZZ.  After reviewing the arrival; I realized an altitude of 23;000 works well for landing north transitions; but not landing south transitions.  I will focus instead on the first hard altitude fix on our arrivals; and make sure we are descending appropriately to hit all windows.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR First Officer reported failing to make a crossing restriction on the BLUZZ1 Arrival into MEM when they were distracted by a wake turbulence encounter in trail of an MD-11.
Date: 201701
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Flight Explorer started incorrectly displaying the position of Aircraft X by over a thousand miles. Tried manually pulling position reports through ACARS; but it did not resolve the issue.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported their flight tracking tool displaying an airborne aircraft's position was off by over a thousand miles from their correct location.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Tower gave us a clearance for takeoff and gave us an advice of a traffic on the left side. We had a TA (traffic advisory) but also we had visual contact with the aircraft. By the time we changed frequencies Departure was already asking 'Aircraft X are you up?' I answered; 'Yes; Aircraft X leaving 2000 for 3000 feet.'  ATC gave us; 'Turn left heading 150 and expedite your turn. You have traffic.'  Simultaneously; the First Officer responded to an RA and leveled off around 2600 feet and continued to expedite the turn. The traffic was at 500 feet above us on the right side. After clear of conflict ATC gave us multiple headings and altitudes to back on course. We had the feeling that ATC did not inform us about the second traffic and there was no way to avoid an RA; since we were in between the two conflicting aircraft. From our stand point an RA was unavoidable because the proximity to both aircraft.  ATC should have delayed our takeoff or assigned a heading to avoid the conflict.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Pilot Crew reported a NMAC and RA after takeoff.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The mission was practicing landings at ZZZ on Runway XXR.  Weather was VFR.  All 4 fuel tanks were full at the start of the flight.  No issues were noted with the aircraft during preflight; taxiing; or run-up.  The plane behaved normally for the first two takeoffs and landings.  The engine had been running for approximately 40 minutes at that point; all drawing from the left main tank; with ~60% of the tank remaining. During the climb-out from the 3rd takeoff; at about 700 ft AGL; the engine had a momentary loss of power (lasting about a second).  In an effort to troubleshoot; I switched tanks from left main to right main.  A few seconds later; another momentary loss of power occurred (again lasting about a second).  Note that this was with everything in takeoff configuration; full throttle; max RPM; mixture full rich; electric fuel pump on; and carburetor heat was already on (keeping the carburetor temperature gauge above 40 deg F). At this point I felt there was a significant risk of the engine having an impending permanent loss of power and decided the most expedient option to get the plane safely back on the ground was to do a left 180 deg turn to land in the opposite direction on the parallel runway.  I stated the situation and my intention to the Tower over the radio.  The turn; descent; and landing on XXR were completed uneventfully.  There was no traffic actively using that runway at the time; so that wasn't a factor. At this point; it's unclear what the root cause was for the engine's momentary power losses.  I've contacted my local shop and have no intention of flying the plane again until after they investigate.  Of note; the engine stayed running seemingly normally at idle during the descent; landing; and subsequent taxiing.  However; during taxiing; the engine would run rough at any throttle setting above idle.  Also; during preflight; the tip tanks both had some water that was sumped out; but the main tanks (the only tanks used during the flight) didn't show any noticeable water when sumped.




Synopsis: Pilot reported engine problems and suspected a fuel issue.