elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: For the third time in less than 30 days; I have been flying the KORRY 4 Arrival into LGA and Washington Center has given us a clearance to cross RIDGY at FL 270. The crossing altitude for RIDGY published on the KORRY 4 STAR is 'at or above' FL 270. The first time I was given this clearance; we had just briefed the STAR; and I put FL 270 into the MCP and verified VNAV PATH. As we got closer to RIDGY; I realized the aircraft was not descending because the FMS was programmed for RIDGY at or above 270. We made the necessary corrections and we were able to comply with the clearance to cross RIDGY at 270. Since that first encounter; I have now had this same clearance given to me two more times. If Washington Center wants aircraft to cross RIDGY at 270; then the STAR needs to be changed to reflect that expectation.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported Washington Center appears to be consistently changing the crossing altitude at RIDGY on the KORRY 4 arrival into LGA and would like to see the chart changed to reflect that.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in flight; we were notified by ATC that we were 15 degrees off course and were asked to turn and go direct to the AMG VOR then as per ATC clearance. We complied and realized that we had not entered the AMG fix in the FMS. No further actions were necessary; and the flight continued safely to our destination.Rushed by the late arrival; swap of aircraft and no time to either get lunch or being able to use the bathroom; we rushed and ended up missing a very important fix along our route that took us toward a restricted area.Again the rush of trying to be on time should have been set aside; and I should have slowed the tempo so that no mistakes will have been made.  Another lesson to be learned.




Synopsis: A fatigued and hungry Captain reported a track deviation because he failed to enter a flight plan fix into the FMS during the previous turn around with time only to swap aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ORH.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence; Fog; 1.5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ORH
ATC / advisory: CTAF ORH
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Conducting a GPS LPV approach to Runway 11 at ORH. It was night and the weather was changing rapidly due to a frontal system just to the north. Everything appeared to be normal through the final approach fix RILOC. The autopilot captured the course and the glide path. At 1500 MSL I called 300 above minimums. A few seconds later the radar altimeter activated which was set to 204 ft AGL. About a second or two after that I felt a bump in the rudder pedals. I immediately executed a missed approach and climbed. I found out later after I had landed at [a different airport] that I had contacted a tree with my wingtip.




Synopsis: Turboprop pilot reported contacting a tree during a night IMC RNAV (GPS) Runway 11 approach to ORH. A go-around was initiated and the flight diverted to an alternate airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach selected Flaps 1 to begin configuring the aircraft for landing. Received ECAM message F/CTL SLATS FAULT. Followed ECAM procedure; then QRH procedure in conjunction with Land Application and landed with slats up and Flaps 3 per checklist guidance. Landing was uneventful.




Synopsis: A321 Check Airman reported receiving ECAM message F/CTL SLATS FAULT on approach.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Setting up for left base leg to Runway 26; arriving from MIERA. Wind from west at 16 KTS. From a MIERA to ABQ track; I made the right turn to enter the pattern on a left base leg. As I rolled out; I determined that I was clear of the terrain to the east; but wanted more clearance. I began maneuvering more to the west; but before the maneuver was complete; I received a Terrain Caution. I disengaged the autopilot and autothrottles to increase separation; but then received a Terrain Warning. I then executed the Terrain Avoidance procedures and a go-around. Tower vectored us to an upwind leg and then cleared us for the visual approach to Runway 26. On the second approach; I gave the terrain greater clearance and landed without incident. At no time did I feel the safety of the aircraft was in danger.


Second narrative: On a left base visual approach to Runway 26 ABQ; the pilot flying cut the corner too close on the high terrain east of the field. Coupled with a strong west wind; we received a Terrain Caution quickly followed by a Terrain Warning. The pilot flying applied the terrain escape procedure; climbing safely above the terrain.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier Crew arriving from the east over MIERA got an EGPWS TERRAIN CAUTION followed by a WARNING while on a left base to ABQ Runway 26 so the Captain executed the escape maneuver and on the second approach maintained a greater terrain clearance.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On descent into ABQ we briefed both the RNAV (RNP) Z Runway 3 with a backup of the ILS 3. We verified the points; RNP availability forecast (RAF) and loaded the appropriate RNP value. We began the approach at TNTOE on LNAV/VNAV PATH. We proceeded to the next fix PLNET on the approach. When we overflew PLNET on the approach the aircraft flew directly to BILDE instead of doing the 7.3 DME ARC. Approach Control informed us that we were off course and gave us a vector and altitude. We complied and asked for vectors to fly the ILS 3; which we had previously briefed. The approach and landing were uneventful. We debriefed after landing but could not come a conclusion on why the aircraft flew directly to the point and why the 7.3 NM ARC was not flown. Possibly confirming in more detail that the ARC is confirmed on both DU display as well as confirming that it is on the CDU while briefing the approach.


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


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV (RNP) Runway 3 Approach into ABQ.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electrical Wiring & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During A300 preflight Aircraft X Captain touched base of rotating beacon switch on overhead panel (cleaning cockpit) and Captain received a sizable electric shock. (Painful; but no injury or burn) switch position was off.  Gingerly touched beacon switch a second time; could not duplicate; until I rubbed the base of switch; received a second jolt.  At that time I called Maintenance.  At first Mechanic could not duplicate; but eventually he got jolted.  At this juncture I was writing up [the] discrepancy and Mechanic opted to de-power aircraft which we did for him as he removed the aircraft exterior lighting panel on the overhead.  While he was inspecting the internals of the beacon switch my FO and I noted aircraft wire bundles that brought power from aircraft electrical system to cannon plugs for the overhead panel components had frayed wire insulation and exposed copper wiring.  Wires were particularly frayed on outside of bundles (perhaps rubbing internal frame) and around the zip tie wraps containing the bundles. While I was present the Mechanic removed nearby panels for SELCALL panel and the ignition/starter/wiper control panels and bare copper wire areas with eroded wire insulation was found again on multiple wire bundles. Afterward I recorded the additional wiring issues I witnessed under the two additional panels removed in a second further write up.  Again for clarification I would like to stress these were not wires on individual components; but wires from aircraft electrical system to the cannon plugs feeding the components.  At this point aircraft was removed from service and we swapped aircraft and flew our flight normally.  Obviously this is a potential concern.  My main concerns are as follows: 1. Determining if this a known issue and already being tracked?  2. Determining if this issue is specific to this aircraft or fleet wide issue?  3. Determining was this the cause of the shock or an independent event that uncovered a potential wiring issue?  4. Determining if suspicion that remaining unchecked overhead panel wire bundles contain frayed exposed wiring is correct.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported being electrically shocked when cleaning the rotating beacon switch on the overhead panel. Maintenance removed the lighting panel on the overhead and it was noted wire bundles showed frayed insulation and exposed copper wiring.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After the First officer made an uneventful landing; at taxi speed just before I was going to take over the controls in the right turn on to taxiway B; the aircraft did not seem to have directional control and no braking; with the right pedal fully depressed on both sides. As the left gear and the nose wheel departed the paved taxiway I retarded both mixtures so the prop would not hit the taxi edge lights; the left engine stopped and the right one kept running (both fuel pumps were on low). The aircraft came to a stop and I decided to restart the left engine and taxied to the terminal; the First Officer (FO) and myself were surprised as to what happened; and we both figured it could have been a gust of wind. Upon arrival at the terminal I turned towards the 3 passengers and made sure they were ok and told them that we probably hit a gust of wind; they seemed undisturbed. The FO and myself inspected the landing gear and the propellers and noticed a small nick in one of the blades of the left propeller. I immediately called the chief pilots office; and gave the manager on duty a description as to what happened. I wrote up the aircraft for inspection.


Second narrative: After an uneventful landing I initiated a right turn on to the B taxiway at normal (even slow) taxi speed. The plane turned approximately 60 degrees of the 90 degree turn and then stopped turning. At that time both myself and the Captain were applying full right rudder and full right brake; yet the aircraft continued straight.The Captain and myself inspected the landing gear and propellers. The landing gear had a small amount of mud but seemed fine otherwise.


Synopsis: C402 Flight Crew reports an unexplained loss of control during taxi off the runway after landing resulting in a taxiway excursion and possible damage to the left propeller. The aircraft is then taxied to the ramp.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Beechcraft King Air Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Aircraft X was descending on the ROKNN1 arrival into CGF; which allows the aircraft to cross ROKNN between 17;000 and 10;000 feet. Aircraft Y was level at 15;000 feet on course from CMH to ZZZ via BONZZ. I turned Aircraft Y to a 080 heading to maintain separation between the two aircraft but it was not enough and lateral separation was 4.92 miles according to the conflict alert. Aircraft Y was east of the ROKNN waypoint at this time. Prior to this happening; a [third aircraft] called VFR near the Barber intersection. Through several transmissions; I finally determined it was an aircraft looking to do parachute operations near Barber. Standard procedure is that these aircraft file with Akron Approach; Akron works them in their airspace until transferring the data block and radio communications to the BSV sector. This did not occur today. The pilot said he contacted Akron Approach and the controller advised that he contact me. There was no flight plan in the system. This situation added to the complexity of the work session. More training would have been preferred with respect to the huge changes made to Cleveland Approach airspace from Metroplex. I feel like I am learning while I am working; but [it] is very uncomfortable.




Synopsis: ZOB Center Controller reported separation was lost between two aircraft in the Akron area. Airspace changes related to Metroplex design were cited as contributing.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: F70.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: UNICOM F70
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This airport tends to be very busy with flight training; corporate traffic and people coming for lunch at the on-field cafe. It was very busy when I got there. I chose to go around from final because of the crowd and so did the Aircraft Y on final in front of me. We got into the pattern again; and I lost sight of him. I turned base where the published airport procedure indicates and there was the Aircraft Y; very close in front of me. He had gone way out downwind and turned a long; long final. I didn't hear him announce final; so I don't know if he did or not. This was a close call. The pilot never saw me. I went around again to avoid any conflict and landed safely. I have noticed that (for reasons that baffle me); pilots are making extremely wide downwind legs and very long finals. This is for all types of planes at small airports. The procedure used to be you turned base at 45 degrees to the numbers. That way you were always in the vicinity of the airport; the pattern was efficient; and you knew where to look for other aircraft. I believe this non-standard procedure (rapidly becoming standard) contributes to congested patterns and the increased likelihood of not seeing other planes. I think this is what happened to me and the other pilot. Both of us didn't look hard enough on base and final to see if the way was clear. I called my base leg before the Aircraft Y appeared in my windshield; so it would have helped if he announced where he was when he heard me call. Maybe he thought I was behind him? My takeaway is to look; look and look again for aircraft that have turned for excessively long finals and also for planes doing wide (and I mean really wide) downwind legs. What you do about unwise training these days; I don't know. I'll also avoid this airport at lunch hour; since it tends to have increased traffic at that time. When I left; things had settled down a bit.




Synopsis: GA Single Pilot reported an NMAC event in landing pattern of F70 airport with aircraft that had a longer than normal downwind leg.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The B737 was at 110. His Data Block had a trailing R; which is supposed to indicate the aircraft is on an RNAV SID; in this case the CEEME1 arrival. All the B737 aircraft are supposed to be on the FERNANDO5 arrival; due to an equipment issue with their fleet. When I inquired as to which arrival the B737 was on; the pilot replied the FERNANDO5 and that they were issued 'a screwed up routing to get there'. I reported the anomaly to my FLM; who contacted ZLA. The response was 'The B737 cannot get rid of the trailing R and ZLA will not remove it either. The SCT Controllers will need to verify that the B737 aircraft have the appropriate arrival. A bad situation gets worse with the CEEME1 arrival. We now have aircraft tagged with one arrival; but on another arrival; but we also need to verify which arrival they actually are on. Discontinue use of the CEEME1 arrival until it can be properly designed and all controllers and pilots are properly briefed on the procedure. It has been nothing but problems from the day it was turned on.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a confused arrival procedure event prompted by a Data Block indicator that was inaccurate; the reporter suggesting the discontinuation of the problematic procedure until briefings and a proper fix can be completed.