elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; 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: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The B737 aircraft was climbing off BNA. That aircraft was handed off of R62 above my airspace for an Automated Information Transfer (AIT). The Controller at R62 took the hand off; put FL310 in the data block; and flashed to T37. T37 took the hand off; and I climbed the aircraft to FL310. A few seconds later; R62 told me to stop the B737 at FL230 (altitude just below T37 airspace); T37 could not approve any higher. I stop the B737 at FL230; and then asked R62 the reason why. I then scrolled out my scope to see T37 had traffic descending out of FL260 for FL200. This traffic was deviating right of course for weather. I asked R62 of T37 was stopping the CRJ2 traffic at FL240. R62 explained that he didn't know and would call. I told him to have T37 put the CRJ2 on a 270 heading to avoid the B737 traffic at FL230. R62 called T37 and was told T37 was no longer talking to that traffic; although the aircraft was still in T37's airspace. T41 was called and told to put the CRJ2 on a 270 heading to avoid traffic. I then called to T41 to insure he had RADAR on the B737 who was level at FL230. That Controller said no; I can take a point out on the aircraft. I then explained T37 would not climb the B737; could he take RADAR. T41 took RADAR and once the CRJ2 was no longer traffic for the B737; I switched the B737 to T41. T37 should have never taken RADAR on the B737 climbing to FL310 if they had traffic. The T37 Controller should have called ZME and communicated a plan to keep these aircraft safe; not passed the buck to others. Next; if the Controller then realized they were traffic; and had to stop the B737 climb an FL230; the Controller should have taken action to stop the CRJ2 decent at FL240. The Controller should have never switched the CRJ2 frequency when such a situation was taken place. The Controller should have talked to T41; the Controller below his/her airspace and the Controller who was talking to the CRJ2 at the time. T41 should have been proactive also and communicated with me about this dangerous situation and what his plan of action was. ZTL should have been talking to me directly.




Synopsis: ZME Controller described in detail an alleged unsafe operation that involved the Automated Information Transfer (AIT) procedure.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D PDK
ATC / advisory: Tower PDK
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for takeoff on 21R at PDK with a left turn out for a Northeast departure. We were climbing from 3;000 MSL to 4;000 MSL when we cleared the airport traffic area. The tower called and approved frequency change. I replied and turned down the volume so I could talk to the student.On returning to the airport I was informed the tower was franticly trying to contact me immediately after the approved frequency change. I called the tower after landing and learned the controller had noticed a developing traffic conflict on the radar. A business jet was inbound from the East to land at KRYY descending toward 4;000 MSL. The jet was probably on Atlanta Center or perhaps RYY tower for a visual; so PDK tower had no contact with him. His approach was from our right rear about 4 O'clock and I did not see him. He did see us in time to avoid us. The reported separation was 500 feet over us.  We do not stay on tower frequency any longer than necessary. It is impossible to instruct with the high volume of transmissions at KPDK. Atlanta approach poses the same problem. On cross countries we tune 121.5 and this might be useful. I asked the tower controller if they tried 121.5 however he said PDK tower does not have 121.5 as a frequency?? Why not? I know Atlanta Center does. There should be an established procedure for this the Atlanta area is heavy mixed traffic and not all the flight school planes have traffic.




Synopsis: Upon returning to the airport at the end of the flight; the instructor pilot was informed by the Tower that they had been attempting to contact them on departure due to a traffic conflict with an aircraft not under Tower's control.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DKB.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Initially completed a flight to ZZZ; setup Garmin 650 NAV for an approach to ZZZ Runway 15. Contacted the tower at ZZZ clear to land. Garmin 650 appeared to function normally. Completed two local flights and checked weather for return. Weather was IFR... filed flight plan. Contacted ZZZ Ground for clearance. Taxied to Runway 15 to departure. Setup Garmin 650 for direct to destination. Contacted Approach... Everything normal. Climbed to 3000. Received headings from ATC. ATC indicated to turn left to intercept the inbound course. That is when I realized the GPS or I was not functioning properly. Advised ATC immediately. Radar vectored around to try again. Recycle GPS and reset it to [DKB] GPS Runway XX. Tried again. In the meantime; I become extremely rattled by the GPS issue. Lost altitude and heading. Recovered back to 3000 and ATC heading. ATC was extremely professional and worked with me until we both realized I was unable to correct the GPS issue... we agreed to change the approach to the ILS. Thereby not relying on the GPS at all. ATC gave me radar vectors to the ILS approach course. Which I was able to intercept the localizer and follow the glide slope to circle to land ... closed flight plan. The overall issue with the GPS is very concerning... I plan to go back out with a CFII this week to review the issue by repeating in VFR conditions the approach and figure out what I may have done wrong or if the GPS unit had a problem and get it fixed!!! The bottom line will be to get more training from a CFII and ensure this issue is never repeated. I have made many flights and approaches with the Garmin 650 and am current IFR in the previous 6 months. In fact; in practice I have made at least 12 GPS approaches simulated in the past 6 months or so. With a CFII and/or Check Pilot.




Synopsis: Pilot reported experiencing erratic GPS input and display while in IMC flight conditions.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On an after maintenance flight; I experienced a loss in fuel pressure and noticed a rough running engine. At this point; I turned the electric boost pump on and switched the tank that I was feeding off of. This momentarily gave me partial power. I [advised ATC that] I was planning on landing at [the nearest airport] when the fuel pressure dropped again and I lost complete power. I then had the person sitting in the right seat notify ATC that we were executing a forced landing on a road to the east of [the airport]. I executed the forced landing successfully with only minor damage to the aircraft.

Callback: The reporter indicated that the engine is currently under evaluation; but it still appears to be a fuel system problem.



Synopsis: The pilot of a Beechcraft Bonanza reported a loss of engine power and an off-field landing. An engine fuel system malfunction was reported as the cause.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi out to runway 25L for departure; while approaching the 25L threshold; new runway assignment was issued along with crossing instructions and intersection takeoff clearance. Crew accepted the clearance; but failed to reload the proper runway 25R data into both FMS units for the associated departure. The result was an early turn on the LOOP SEVEN departure.Takeoff clearance and or 25L crossing clearance should have been rejected by crew. There was not adequate time to carefully load and brief the appropriate procedures. Additional factors include use of electronic charts; especially with single copies. With only one electronic copy available to crew; the copy may not be displayed to both crewmembers when necessary. Over reliance on FMS data then seems to create major risks.Allowing the intersection takeoff clearance to be issued with a runway change and a runway crossing while near the runway thresholds should not have been accepted. Adequate time was not present to carefully execute checklists and briefings. Also; charted data should have been displayed to both crewmembers for all published procedures for proper crosscheck of data at all times.




Synopsis: First Officer reported making an early turn on the LAX LOOP departure when the FMS was not programmed properly following a late runway change.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was First Officer in the right seat for our ferry flight to ZZZ. After we landed Runway XXR we turned left on Echo and began taxing to [FBO] via Alpha. As we approached the [FBO] ramp we spotted our marshaller and just before we began our right turn in to the ramp I looked right and then didn't see anyone next to us. As we turned into the ramp the Captain had to slam on the brakes as a [company] aircraft tug passed us; from right to left; on the vehicle service road at a high rate of speed. The driver of the tug was looking down at his phone as he was driving and didn't look up until he was in front of us. He did even slow down; just waived his hand and kept going. I alerted ZZZ Ground Control of the issue and they said they would take care of it. Texting and driving whether on the road in a car or driving a tug on the ramp is always a BAD idea.The driver need a minimum of a suspension of his airport driving privileges and all Company employees at ZZZ need to be made aware of the incident.




Synopsis: EMB-505 First Officer reported that a tug driver was texting while driving and caused a critical ground conflict.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Integrated Audio System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; MEL
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aural altitude alert did not function. Autopilot; flight director; MCP; and autothrottles all worked well. I forgot that aural altitude alert is required for RVSM airspace. This was the first revenue flight for this aircraft.  I assumed that this was the normal configuration for this aircraft. We had reviewed differences prior to departure in the QRH so that should have given me heads up that it was not correct.In the future when something is not ordinary; check the DDG (Dispatch Deviations Guide). This would have prompted note to Maintenance and write up of aircraft in this circumstance.




Synopsis: B747 Captain reported that an aircraft was operated in RVSM airspace without a required component.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi; Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After the flight had been pushed out Ramp Lead called inquiring why he was getting a weight message wanting to know if the flight was overweight; because [load plan application] would not let him finalize. After looking at the [load plan]; I noticed the Hazmat in Pit 4; told the ramp he had Hazmat in Pit 4 with only 10 bags. His response was first there is no Hazmat onboard the flight. I then told him there was; and item 2 was Hazmat. The Ramp Lead thought I was referring to the AOG (Aircraft on Ground parts); he said the AOG is not Hazmat. I then asked him to look at his paperwork and questioned him if he did in fact load item 2; a 100 pound quick pack; he said yes he loaded the quick pack but he didn't know the quick pack was Dangerous Goods. The Ramp Lead who is now in charge of planning out the flight again failed to properly identify Dangerous Goods while they were planning the flight. The Ramp Lead did not have a paper copy of the [load plan] and was totally dependent on the scanner.




Synopsis: Air carrier Load Planner reported a communications breakdown with Ramp Lead regarding Hazmat shipment incorrectly configured for air shipment. Hazmat shipment was corrected.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: COU.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D COU
ATC / advisory: Tower COU
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was hand flying the ILS to Runway 2 approach at COU.  Weather was turbulent with light to moderate chop; IMC conditions.  Approximately 2.5 miles beyond the final fix; YATGU; the aircraft went into a left bank; nose down attitude.  Corrections were applied and positive control was regained.  Declared a missed approach and requested the RNAV 2 approach.  Flew the approach without incident to a safe landing.  Learned two days later at the FBO that a King Air had landed before me reported weather difficulties on approach.  This information was not provided by the Tower and could have provided additional situational awareness before beginning the approach. [The information could have lead] to selecting a different approach or going to the alternate.  Going forward; I will query ATC for any abnormal weather reports at my destination.  I am going to get additional training on integrating the autopilot into my ILS approaches to reduce the workload.  Also; after a long duration flight in IMC (3.3 hours) I will drink a bottle of water 30-45 minutes out and eat an energy bar to insure I am at the top of my game.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reports momentarily losing control of his aircraft during a hand flown ILS approach in turbulent IMC.  A go-around is initiated and vectors to the RNAV approach the same runway are received to a successful landing.  Fatigue and lack of pertinent Pireps were cited as contributing factors.
Date: 201905
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival into DEN; we received 3 different arrivals (ANCHR; WAHUU; and KOHOE). Each installation required sequencing of the arrival to the RNAV (RNP) Z 35R. We accomplished and verified each time; but on the final sequencing DONNT and BAARK did not drop out so that when cleared the approach; with LNAV and VNAV engaged; the aircraft on autopilot did not turn at MSIMS or descend out of 11;000 feet as required. At the same time we became aware of this discrepancy; ATC called; queried and canceled approach clearance; with a vector and descent to 9;000 feet assigned. Once on the vector for a visual final; the aircraft was flown manually to land on 35R. Tower directed us to call TRACON upon gate arrival. I spoke with a Supervisor; and explained the error in sequencing and subsequent actions to comply with ATC guidance. No further discussion ensued and I was informed there was no loss of separation.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into DEN following the assignment of three different arrivals from ATC.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On climb out; the Captain noticed the close out had dry ice in the aft cargo compartment. We had not received any Hazmat forms and I had missed it on the closeout. During taxi out we were distracted due to a runway change and takeoff data not matching the Takeoff Performance System (TPS) data. After landing in ZZZ1; I went to see if the hazmat was actually on board the aircraft in the aft cargo compartment; and it was.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported no required Hazmat documentation provided for Hazmat shipment.