elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
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
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local when told we had an A330 emergency diverting and coming in opposite direction landing [Runway] 34R currently dumping fuel. The TRACON advised they would let me know when to stop departures. I was very busy on Local had about ten departures for [Runway] 16L and was launching them as fast as possible. I had just put another Air Carrier in position when the TRACON hit the stop departure lights. I called Departure and let them know about the aircraft in front of the other Air Carrier that was already departing; then since the other Air Carrier hadn't lined up yet taxied him across [Runway] 16L to hold short of the center to get him off the runway. I think they stopped departures too soon [as]  the A330 was about 30 miles out. The TRACON should have coordinated with me instead of just hitting the stop departure lights. Several aircraft had delays because of the departure(s) cut off. The A330 was too high and had to do a 360 on final; all done on final frequency no coordination was done with me. I think a little heads up would have been nice; further delaying departures. As the A330 was landing; I realized I should have made sure Intersection E was no longer blocked. I did not think he would land that long with calm winds and coming in slow. Long story short he rolled down to E; then requested a doctor meet him at the gate. That was the first time we heard he needed medical assistance. I just thought that he was only a mechanical emergency. Better communication; making sure the intersection wasn't blocked; enough people to have local assist open would have helped but that late at night it was impossible; CIC being busy with a lot of phone calls and working clearance delivery at the same time so he was distracted; better coordination from the TRACON.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described the complexities of handling an emergency aircraft inbound opposite direction to the normal flow of traffic and the coordination/communications difficulties encountered.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PTSA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Landing
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: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: NOTAMs indicate that the PAPI system for PTSA is unserviceable. It does not say inoperative. During approaches to both runway 5 and 23; the PAPI lights can be turned on via pilot controlled lighting (the normal way); however; after about 10 seconds; they turn off. This has been like this for several months now. An approach to minimums on perhaps the shortest runway in the system (5700 FT) surrounded by water should have operable PAPIs.




Synopsis: A Captain reported the PAPI at PTSA/KSA has been unserviceable for several months; a situation he believes uancceptable due to the short 5;700 FT length of the runway with both approaches over open water.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMSD.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON MMSD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was the non flying pilot and had been briefed for the minimum descent altitude on the airway coming into MMSD. Prior to MARUX we were given the cleared for Approach. The Captain flying briefed the 8000 feet until MARUX and then at the next 15.0 dme fix 3600 feet to 11.0 Dme. As we were cleared for the approach the Captain armed the approach and got the Approach Nav and Final annunciation. When final captured we started our descent to 3600 feet. Upon reaching 3600 feet we were yelled at by ATC that we were not cleared to descend below 6000 feet as it was below Minimum Vectoring Altitude of 5100 feet. We both noticed we were on profile and at this point we were both confused due to the on profile indication. We continued on in day VMC with airport in sight and were cleared Visual Approach while tracking the approach profile. Upon landing we debriefed the event and noticed that in fine print that the segment after MARUX and before the 15 Dme fix was 6000 minimum. After 15 Dme the 3600 min until 11 Dme applies.We both missed the 6000 foot minimum restriction on the chart and it is not coded into the approach in NAV Data for the VOR Approach. Given the VFR conditions; we continued the approach and landed visually. We should probably have climbed back to 5100 foot MVA or 6000 feet for 4 miles and then continued descent to 3600 feet on the approach. The event occurred because we did not properly brief the altitudes on the approach chart.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported not noticing the 6000 ft minimum vectoring altitude between MARUX and the IAF on the MMSD VOR DME-2 Runway 16 Approach. The reporter stated the altitude is not coded into their navigation database.
Date: 201410
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Had a flight waiting at the gate for the weather to clear. OPS supervisor called and asked why we wanted this flight to push with a T-STORM in progress. I asked who told you to push the flight.They said the [Dispatch Manager] told them to push the flight because the crew is going to be illegal. I advised the ops agent to have the flight stay put. The question is who has operational control? The next question becomes...if the [Dispatch Manager] has not dispatched a flight in over 90 days how can they take operational control when by the company's own policy to be current to dispatch you MUST have worked the desk once in 90 days. 99 % of the [Dispatch Managers] have not dispatched a flight in many years.




Synopsis: Dispatcher believes that the Dispatch Manager is operating outside of company policy when he instructs an operations agent to push back a flight during a thunderstorm because the crew is about to go illegal.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Data Transmission and Automatic Calling
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing ZZZ while taxiing into [FBO]; ground control asked us to call them on a different frequency after we shut down. Upon contacting them; they advised us that our aircraft had been transmitting a constant data stream on Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) from the time we left ZZZ2 to ZZZ1 to ZZZ. This occurrence caused interference to all other aircraft in the area of our location as we traveled. According to ATC; there were many aircraft who were unable to receive their CPDLC communications during the time our aircraft was in their vicinity. The Controller stated to us that 'We completely shut down [two major airports]' from utilizing CPDLC for all flights requiring its usage. We are unaware if we had the same affect in [other areas]. ATC had been trying to track down this problem for some time. Once we landed in ZZZ; they pinpointed it to be our aircraft as the cause of the trouble. Upon communicating with them; they informed us of the situation.We called [Company] Maintenance and discussed this with the Maintenance Controller on duty. After a full description of the issue; he said he would contact some folks and call us back as soon as he could. While waiting for his call we decided to completely shut down the aircraft to full dark for the first time since our original start up in ZZZ2 some 7 hours earlier. After letting everything sit completely unpowered for a few minutes; we restarted the APU and brought all systems back on line.We contacted ATC and they indicated our aircraft was no longer broadcasting CPDLC data. We called [the Maintenance Controller] and relayed our findings to him along with the controller's comments. [He] gave us a suggestion if it were to happen again; we could change our com 3 setting from Data to Voice. This should resolve the issue by stopping any continual data transmissions if the situation were to reoccur. We departed a short time later with no further issues. I think we should follow up with Gulfstream and possibly the FAA to try and figure out why this happen to try and make sure we don't repeat it. As of now it is still a mystery.




Synopsis: G450 Captain reported the aircraft Controller Pilot Data Link Communications system was continually transmitting data thus blocking other data link communications from reaching other aircraft. Captain reported a complete shutdown of the aircraft fixed the problem.
Date: 201601
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 90KIAS [on takeoff roll] we received an ECAM Caution for: ENG 1 COMPRESSOR VANE.  We did not notice any other abnormalities or unusual indications from ENG 1.  We aborted the takeoff and returned to the gate.


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


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported they rejected the takeoff after receiving an ECAM for ENG 1 COMPRESSOR VANE.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a visual approach for [the center runway] at ZZZ. On short final the aircraft realized that he was lined up for the wrong runway and questioned it. I cleared him to land either [the left or center] because I had no traffic.After he landed I realized that the runway lights had been set only to level one and made the airport very difficult to see.The background on this is that a group of supervisors here decided that they were only going to use the presets for the lighting panel which set the lights for the bare minimum .65 light settings. They are doing this to hope to force a change by causing an incident. Unfortunately the level one setting makes the airport incredibly difficult to see due to the bright city and street lights all around the airport. I hadn't noticed that she had done this when I took the position or I would have set the lights to step 3 like most Full Performance Levels (FPLs) do for safety.Aircraft X landed safely on the wrong runway without incident.Reset our presets on the runway edge light via the lighting panel to reflect the reality of this particular airport environment. Level one is unusable. Level two is the bare minimum. Level three is the safest.We recently had an incident here at ZZZ where an aircraft ended up in a ditch due to poor lighting. You would think this would be a priority.




Synopsis: A Controller reported an aircraft that lined up for the wrong runway due to lighting of the runway. The Controller reported the lights were on step one and he would have had them on step three and also stated the Front Line Managers (FLMs) are having issues with lighting at the airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon checking on with LGA tower; we were issued an unauthorized unmanned drone activity at 1000 feet.  When we approached 1000 feet; we were on the lookout for this drone.  While scanning the sky; something caught my eyes at the 2 o'clock position low.  I shifted my focus towards the object; and sure enough; there was a white quadcopter maneuvering below and to the right of our fight path.  The sighting was only a fraction of a second; but I was able to make a mental note of the position due to the unique shape of the condos/apartment buildings below.  Our approach and landing was normal and uneventful.  There was no collision danger and no evasive action was taken.  Once we shut down at the gate; I checked the position of the condo buildings and obtain a road intersection via Google Maps Satellite view.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports sighting a drone; first reported by LGA Tower; 3 NM NNE at 1;000 feet during approach to Runway 22. No evasive action was required.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
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: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 40 miles north of RNO at 10;000 feet MSL; in a holding pattern assigned by ATC; as we were accomplishing the checklist for a flap asymmetry malfunction.  A TCAS advisory had traffic at our 12:30 and 12 miles; indicating 1000 ft. above our altitude and heading toward us/converging flight paths. At five miles traffic was now 12:00 and 500 feet above our altitude.  At 3 miles and 12:00 traffic was descending and indicating 300 feet above us. We took evasive action; turning away 90 degrees and descending over 700 feet. Traffic ultimately crossed to our right 500 feet above our altitude while we executed the evasive maneuver. TCAS gave a visual RA after we executed our evasive maneuver; but it gave no aural RA. We notified ATC of our actions and our subsequent return to heading and altitude. ATC stated that according to his radar traffic was 1000 feet above our altitude. I believe oncoming traffic was a general aviation aircraft off his altitude. We never acquired the traffic visually.  We called out traffic early to ATC; but his radar showed a 1000 feet of clearance.  We on the other hand could not risk such a near miss encounter and chose to take aggressive and decisive action to avoid the oncoming traffic; ultimately violating our ATC clearance.  Conditions were VFR and no other traffic was in our area.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported TCAS indicating NMAC which resulted in evasive action although ATC stated traffic indicated 1000 feet vertical separation.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Event occurred on [date] and I was unaware of the report that ZNY filed.  Management advised me of the report yesterday and was able to listen to the audio.  Based on the audio from yesterday; I was training on all positions combined but traffic and complexity was low (not a factor). Aircraft X checks on frequency and trainee verified route until 60w as Loa with ZNY.  Pilot read back was 'Can you say the fix after Betir; because we have different flight plans.'  Communication was very garbled and unreadable. Trainee cleared aircraft after Betir direct Chedr without confirming route after Chedr (on the second time).  Before listening to audio; supervisor told me that aircraft filed 4 flight plan that day.  3 of them over Keeka and the other one over Chedr.  I advised supervisor that D-side should notice the different flight plans filed and advise me but D-side never did.  I asked supervisor what aircraft did or flew after Chedr and supervisor told me that after Chedr aircraft flew direct 50w coordinate.  We never issued a clearance after Chedr direct that 50w coordinate; resulting on a pilot deviation on my opinion.Lately; because of ERAM; we are receiving a lot of duplicate flight plans and most D-side are tired of them and are not verifying if flight plans are the same or the difference between them.  It is the D-side's responsibility to verify routing on duplicate flight plans and if there is a difference between them advise the R-side of it.  On this case; after I listened to audio of the event; D-side did not verified the difference of the flight plans; R-side did not re-verified routing with pilot until 60w and pilot end up flying a routing never been clear by ATC.




Synopsis: ZSU Controller reports of duplicate flight plans in the system that led to the pilot flying a different route than what the controllers had.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BED.Tower, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D BED
ATC / advisory: Tower BED
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X landing RY11 short final; C172 holding on RY11 short of RY5 waiting for traffic on crossing runway RY05 to complete departure phase of touch and go. C172 exited RY11 on to RY05 as Aircraft X crossed landing threshold RY11. Local controller not experienced working crossing runways traffic; failed to properly anticipate speed of jet aircraft and situational requirements.Traffic practicing crosswind landings/departures RY05. While the traffic was lite and this activity should not have been a problem the local controller was engaged in conversation with a developmental controller who was observing the operation. The local controllers working speed did not match the demands of this situation. The local controller had wanted the C172 to land and roll past the crossing runway while the pilot had wanted to exit on the cross runway for a closer taxi to parking. the local controller choose to hold the C172 on RY11 short of RY5 and wait for the completion of the touch and go on RY5 then exiting the C172.It could/would have been more productive to exit the C172 on to RY5 and then the taxiway and send the RY5 traffic around. The risk of the go around for RY5 traffic was far less than the potential RY11 high energy landing Aircraft X and the stationary C172 powering up to exit onto RY5.On observation and query of the local controller there was little understanding of the full gravity of the situation. Disturbingly the local controller was still engaged in conversation with the developmental and placing blame on the pilots.




Synopsis: BED Tower Front Line Manager reported of a Local Controller who; while distracted by a Developmental; led to a runway separation event. FLM reported Controller's speed of actions was not up to the tempo of traffic. FLM reported Controller should have done something different to avoid the loss of separation.