elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: 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
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This mission airspace was released today without consent from the controller working the sector by the ZOA OMIC. This was not a weekend; nor was it within the posted scheduled. The call was made 5 minutes; not 15-30; before the airspace was called active. A commercial flight was minutes from entering that airspace and had to take a significant vector to avoid the restricted area. Every part of this event was done incorrectly with a critical safety element missing throughout. The ZLC OMIC and some supervisors were made aware of this situation. I would be interested to see whether or not facility management fills out any official paperwork or if this deviation will go undisclosed and intentionally covered up from the agency. Every part of this event was done incorrectly with a critical safety element missing throughout. An aircraft had to be suddenly vectored. There is no excuse for this; in fact there are safeguards in place to prevent this from happening. It's hard to 'break the chain' when you 'Unable;' a non-coordinated use of your airspace; and you are told that you are not in control of your airspace and have no say.




Synopsis: ZLC Controller voiced concern regarding the lack of proper coordination regarding a rocket launch area noting every aspect of the coordination procedure was flawed.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to departure; the First Officer received a full route clearance over the radio. The clearance he wrote down was 'BASYE-SEALL-V188-GON-V374 INT ORW 130 degrees-DEEPO-ACK.' I checked this against FMS waypoints prior to engine start and was in agreement. In addition; BASYE is on the low altitude chart and it seemed a reasonable clearance as departing off Runway 16 at HPN on the WESTCHESTER3 heads the aircraft towards the area of BASYE.After takeoff and leveling at 11;000 MSL on a heading; we were cleared to BASYE/BAYYS. I prompted the FMS direct to 'BASYE' and engaged the LNAV. About a minute later Departure asked where we were going and I replied BASYE; phonetically spelling it out. He in return spelled out BAYYS to us. As I was entering this in the FMS; he gave us a turn to 150 degrees and handed us over to Boston Center. Just prior to the handoff; we were cleared direct to SEALL.Note: Both BASYE and BAYYS are depicted on the low altitude chart. BAYYS is located [East] of HPN (about 3 inches away on chart) while BASYE is located Northwest about 1.5 inches away. These closely spelled waypoints can lead to confusion. Some thought should be given to renaming one of them.




Synopsis: A G-IV flight crew--cleared to depart HPN via the WESTCHESTER SID; vector BAYYS on course--mistook 'BAYSE' for 'BAYYS' when cleared direct. ATC noted their error and provided corrective clearances.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP; Special Use MOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The Predator departed for airspace usage to the east. Beaver MOA active 003B310. The pilot requested D1A; D2A; and D3A. These airspace's are supposed to enable the Predator to navigate clear of the Beaver MOA (very narrow corridor) CBP [Customs and Border Patrol] has said with certainty that this aircraft can navigate these areas without violating the Beaver MOA. The Predator came within 1 mile of the BEAVER MOA while active with TWO-F16's. This procedure is not safe due to the UNMANNED aircraft not having the ability to safely navigate clear of Active MOA's; there is simply not enough space for the Predator to get through.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller alleges that the UAV that he is controlling (verbally) cannot navigate precisely enough to remain clear of the Beaver MOA as required.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on the bridge visual to RWY 29 at EWR; fully configured; descending through 800-900 feet MSL; turning toward the runway only about three miles from touchdown. We had been cleared for landing many miles before. At that point Tower told us to turn east toward the statue of liberty (reversing direction); and told us to be aware of multiple VFR targets; as we were at low altitude. They apparently had a spacing issue with traffic landing on 4R; so sent us on a perilous low altitude uncontrolled excursion toward Manhattan. We leveled off and reduced our flap setting while doing as directed. After several miles they cleared us to turn back toward the runway and continue the approach. Newark apparently doesn't have proper contingency plans for close spacing; as this was a dangerous thing to do. We could have collided with VFR traffic or a tower; or we could have been seen as a threat to Manhattan breaking off the approach and turning toward the city. We could have also gotten slow leveling and making a hard turn while fully configured.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer flying the Bridge Visual to Runway 29 at EWR is instructed to fly 'east' as the aircraft is turning toward CHUMR. A spacing problem had apparently developed with traffic landing on Runway 22.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Trainee; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: My flight instructor and I were performing a practice RNAV XX approach into ZZZ. We had received radar vectors to the final approach course from ZZZ TRACON and were approaching decision altitude. I was using a view limiting device and was monitoring the instruments and autopilot; while my CFI was scanning for traffic. About 500 feet above decision altitude my flight instructor called out 'GO AROUND!.' I immediately disconnected the autopilot and initiated a climb straight ahead; still using the view limiting device; when my CFI instructed me not to climb. I immediately removed the view limiting device; and saw Aircraft Y approximately 150 feet in front of and 50 feet above us. I initiated a left hand turn to the south immediately; and shortly thereafter was instructed by ZZZ Tower to go-around to the south immediately. I climbed to 6;500 feet MSL on a 180 degree heading; and went around for an additional attempt at the RNAV approach.Leading up to the incident; I received no traffic alerts from ZZZ Tower; nor did I receive any instructions from Tower regarding the approach.In my opinion a major contributing factor to the incident was ZZZ Tower not extending Aircraft Y's downwind to avoid a conflict; as well as the lack of communication between tower and I about the traffic's current position.This was a serious lapse in judgment on the part of both ZZZ Tower and the pilot flying Aircraft Y.It is my sincere belief that if my CFI had not been vigilantly doing his job while I was under the hood; we would have become much closer; and likely had a mid air collision.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported that while performing a practice RNAV approach at an airport with an operating control tower; another Piper aircraft caused an NMAC on short final.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAY.TRACON, NC
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 2
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAY
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a friend in the late evening on an IFR flight plan. During my handoff to Fayetteville I became overly focused on getting my self setup for the next radio change that I expected and I became slightly disoriented. I lost my heading control by 45-50 degrees. I was experiencing a slight operator induced malfunction in the communication equipment of the aircraft that was quickly resolved and I was overly focused on that issue and my heading suffered. I quickly turned back to re intercept my course and was able to make it to my destination safely. As a low IFR time IFR pilot I was very green to the flight environment. I am currently taking it upon myself to undergo recurrent training to better myself in the IFR environment.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot on an IFR flight plan reports being distracted by a radio problem and allowing his heading to drift off course by 45-50 degrees before correcting.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuselage Skin
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors; Equipment / Tooling; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tail dents on a CRJ aircraft. I was performing the new CRJ-700/900 Gear Door Measuring Task; which requires aircraft on jacks. After returning from lunch break; I noticed the aircraft was pointing slightly nose down. I jacked the nose of the aircraft to level it for a moment; and then realized that the Tail Stand was installed; I then stopped the jacking. The Tail Stand was tight to the airframe so I pushed it out. I then inspected the area and found dents 2-3 inches behind where the Tail Stand was installed. I notified the Lead Mechanic and he asked Sheetmetal to take a look. I thought I could have caused the dents. After everyone looked at where our Tail Stand was in relation to the dents; and that the dents were dirt covered; it was possible the dents were already there. At the time; the dents were only slightly noticeable. I expected to have a dent deferral so I continued on with the gear door tasks and Sheetmetal started marking and measuring the dents. I have not jacked an aircraft very many times; but I have thought a lot about the jacking process and suggest four people be required for jacking and placards on jacks that state 'Check for Tail Stand.'




Synopsis: A Mechanic reports he jacked the fuselage nose of a company CRJ aircraft in their hangar to level the airplane after noticing the aircraft in a slightly nose down attitude. Than he realized the tail stand was still installed.
Date: 201208
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our Dispatcher phone system is shut down during every shift turnover and can take minutes to restart after sign-in. I have heard from a director that this is OK because any calls will ring on another desk. This morning at least two Dispatch desks in the Atlantic area were signing the relieved dispatcher out and signing themselves in to the computer at the same time. Where would those calls have gone? If the Dispatcher on whose phone those calls rang was busy doing their own work what then? Are they expected to immediately put their own call on hold to answer someone else's line? How do they know that it is a roll-over call? What if it was an emergency?  I do not understand how our management can stand by their claim that shutting down a phone system used for operational control every time a computer has to be rebooted and at every shift turnover is not a serious compromise of safety. The safety risks are greater during irregular operations such as thunderstorm or winter storm events when we have an abundance of radio and telephone calls. What if there was another event on the order of 9/11?




Synopsis: A Dispatcher expressed concern over the repeated breakdowns in communications with flights under his control due to shift changes and computer rebooting requirements.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; Thunderstorm; 2
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was normal until beginning of descent where we lost the right bleed air; shortly followed by a main cargo door open light and oral warnings; where we could hear air pressurization escaping; we advised ZZZ CTAF and had it relayed to ZZZ1 radio; at that point ZZZ reported visibility at 2 miles; the approach required 3; [and] we continued the approach and had the runway prior to the VDP of 2.8 nm. Landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported that a cargo door malfunction during descent resulted in a loss of pressurization.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Other Holding Pattern
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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 New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: There were multiple aircraft in holding patterns over OCN VORTAC. Some were VFR and some were IFR. When the data blocks would pass each other the digital targets would jump and move to the position of the other aircraft. While this was happening I took control of an IFR aircraft with the assumption that they were now VFR based off their position. I incorrectly gave an IFR aircraft an altitude restriction that would provide 500 feet with another IFR aircraft. I did so thinking the first aircraft was VFR. The two aircraft were both in holding over OCN VOR one at 2500 feet and the other aircraft at 3000 feet. There has been a lot of reports about the new STARS equipment and the jumping targets. I do not fully blame the jumping on my failure to maintain situational awareness on the sector; but I do consider it the contributing distraction that caused my break in awareness. I recommend additional work on the new STARS software to eliminate the jumping of digital targets.




Synopsis: SCT Controller thought an aircraft that was on an IFR flight plan was on a VFR flight plan. The controller used 500 feet vertical separation in a holding pattern instead of 1000 feet. The targets on the STARS radar display were jumping back and forth from their actual position.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I requested the arrival and was the second one to arrive in the hold. I was in the hold for approximately 30 minutes and during that time there were 2-3 more airplanes that entered the hold as well. When Tower asked who was the first in line for the arrival there was radio silence. Tower asked 2-3 more times and that was when one aircraft said that he was the closest for proceed[ing] inbound.One other plane [Aircraft Y] that I was following and that was following [Aircraft X] responded as #2. I had [Aircraft Y] in sight and proceeded to follow them inbound as #3 I was cleared shortly after as #3 to land. Nearing the approach end of [the runway another aircraft; Aircraft Z] appear[ed] from the clouds from my 2'clock 1 -1 1/2 miles and was lined up for [the runway]. I maneuvered behind [Aircraft Z] and was cleared to land as well trying to figure out if they were #3 or I was #3. I believe that tower had cleared me to land again.As I was noticing the spacing of the other planes where they were landing and the taxiway I was spacing myself for the same until I had to readjust for [Aircraft Z]. I reduced power did some S turns as well as deployed flaps. [Aircraft Z] landed and got off of the next taxiway then the other planes did and was slower than I had anticipated. I was approaching the minimum spacing between [Aircraft Z] and myself and Tower told me to Go around. I did not answer Tower but applied full power; retracted flaps to take off; and pitched the nose up. Dealing with the low power setting; full flap's and slow airspeed coupled with [Aircraft Z's] Wake turbulence; I didn't have immediate performance. Tower then issued another GO Around to me 3-4 seconds later and at that time I was able to comply to them. I was then told to make right traffic for [the parallel runway]. I came around and landed.




Synopsis: Pilot reported coming too close to aircraft ahead on final approach. Tower directed a go-around. Second approach and landing was uneventful. Weather was a factor.