elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored for the ILS 22L approach at EWR. Weather was a broken cloud layer that went down to about 700 ft. Approach did not slow us down like they normally do to intercept the LOC so Captain asked if we could slow.  ATC instructed speed 210kts or greater/descend 3000 ft. / fly heading 150 deg.  While in turn further instructions issued: 'Fly 190deg to intercept the localizer / 2500 ft. until established / 180 kts or greater until BUZZD / cleared ILS22L approach / contact TWR 118.3'. When we intercepted the LOC we were above glide path and fast; but slowing. To get on glide path I made slowing the aircraft and configuring the priority which I did. To get slowed up more quickly I turned the autopilot off; but left the auto-thrust on. Configured at gear down; flaps 3; and 170 kts I initiated an aggressive descent that I maintained through 1600 ft. At that point I started to reduce the descent rate; slow and go to flaps full. As we approached approximately 1200 ft. Tower advised us they had a low altitude warning on us; however when I looked at the glide slope we were still one dot above. I also had intermittent visual contact with the ground; but not the field. About this time aircraft also made a sink rate call. At this point we were fully configured and I was continuing to slow the aircraft while reducing the descent rate. I picked up the runway going through 700 ft. and the aircraft was within stable approach criteria. I also picked up the PAPI and it showed two reds and two whites which I maintained until the threshold. We continued to an uneventful landing.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach into EWR.
Date: 201411
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Agents are being directed to push back aircraft to an area known as the penalty box on the north side of [one of the] terminal[s]. When pushing to this location the aircraft and agents must cross an active taxiway. There are two wingwalkers required for the push back. When the push back is complete. One agent must walk back across the active taxiway. The agent is in danger of being run over by a taxiing plane and is subject to jet blast from passing aircraft. There is additional danger at night when visibility is low as the area does not have good lighting.




Synopsis: A ramp employee is concerned about the need for agents to walk across an active runway after pushback.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
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: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: It is a great concern of mine to always having to deal with extremely similar call signs during my flights. Here are some examples of similar flight numbers and call signs that I have encountered in the past six months while flying. [Company] XX1 flying at the same time as [Company] XX2; or [Company] XXX3 and XXX4. These extremely similar call signs are found during approaches; departures and enroute portion of flights. We; [Company] pilots; have to be extremely careful and have to check and double check a lot of times in order not to fly somebody else's clearance. ATC has to constantly warn us of similar callsigns on frequency. The amount of extra workload; concentration and worry that this issue poses on us is unnecessary; extremely difficult; tasking and fatiguing. Not only on us pilots; but on air traffic controllers as well. [Company] is the only company to exercise such practice. I never hear ATC mentioning other companies having similar call sign issues. I know that this is a very common complaint amongst [Company] pilots. Despite the multiple reports filed on this matter; [Company] has done nothing. I cannot express enough how extremely hazardous this [Company] practice is to the safety of flights. Thank you very much.




Synopsis: B767 pilot reported a company practice of issuing similar sounding callsigns that resulted in ATC confusion.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
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; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Not completely configured by 1;000 feet; elected to land flaps 25. Configure earlier.


Second narrative: The aircraft [was] crossing GREKO on a visual backed up by the ILS 22 [and] was configured for the approach and landing and required only the final flaps to be set. At approximately 1;300 feet I called 'flaps to go' and asked to set the flaps. The Captain elected to leave the flaps at 25 rather than the planned 30. At 1;000 feet I asked again to set the flaps to 30; the Captain stated leave the flaps at 25; passing through 500 feet AGL on the proper vertical path the 'too low flaps' warning sounded continuously; I suggested that we go-around. Instead of going around the pilot flying was distracted by the warning and not going around. The pilot flying decided to continue the approach and to land; the landing was uneventful and we exited the runway at Y off Runway 22 after a normal touchdown at about 1;200 feet down the runway. I will demand a go-around and if need be take control of the aircraft earlier in the approach; as the distraction at 500 feet made for an unsafe place to have a control exchange by force.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reports landing with flaps 25 instead of the planed flaps 30 due to aircraft not fully configured at 1;000 feet AGL. At 500 feet a 'too low flaps' GPWS warning is issued and the First Officer suggests a go-around but the Captain elects to land.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on the COWBY Departure with the previous aircraft in sight. After we cleaned-up the aircraft; the Captain selected the autopilot on; selected VNAV; and reset the altitude window from 7;000 FT to FL190. Separation from Company flight appeared normal for LAS; about 2.5 to 3 NM. Approaching 7;000 FT both aircraft began to level. I mentioned that we might get some wake turbulence since we were both at the same altitude. We seemed to be closing on the other aircraft a bit but I expected our paths or altitudes would diverge soon; as usual. I heard ATC give the other aircraft a climb and maintain FL190 clearance. I thought that with both of us at 250 KTS (obviously that was a bad assumption as the other aircraft must have been going much slower than 250 KTS) and him climbing that separation wouldn't be a problem. About a minute later; we started to get some of his wake turbulence. I noticed that we were getting much closer to him and he wasn't climbing. I mentioned to the Captain that we were getting closer. At this point; he disconnected the autopilot and turned slightly to the right to increase separation and get out of his wake. A moment later we got an RA to climb. The Captain followed the RA and I informed ATC. ATC then told us to climb and maintain FL190 and turn direct COWBY; approximately 70-degree left turn. The other aircraft was to our left. The Captain didn't want to take a hard turn into him so he began his climb and started a slow turn to the left trying to keep the other aircraft in sight. Shortly thereafter; we got a second climb RA. The Captain followed that RA also. ATC queried the other aircraft about what they were doing and they confirmed that they had also received multiple RAs. When the RA was resolved; we continued on course to COWBY and climbed to FL 190. The other aircraft must have turned the other direction at ROPPR because we didn't hear or see them again. That spacing and procedure normally works well at LAS. If ATC had let us know that our paths would diverge at ROPPR or that we had a large overtake on the other aircraft; we could have reacted differently. It's difficult to tell closure rate in this situation.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported receiving multiple RA's and wake vortex turbulence on departure from LAS.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach to ZZZ flight #X. Cleared ILS approach Runway XXR. Captured ILS and started configuring the aircraft to flaps10; for an ATC assigned speed of 170 KIAS. The aircraft was not slowing as I anticipated. I asked the copilot to select flaps 10. He responded the flap lever was at 10. I checked the trailing edge flap gauge and cycled the flap handle to 5 then back to 10. No change! Flaps were remaining at flaps 5. I instructed my copilot to report a missed approach.I climbed the aircraft straight ahead and complied with ATC instructions. I placed the autopilot on and transferred Pilot Flying duties and communications with ATC to my copilot. I opened the QRH and accomplished the trailing edge flaps disagree checklist. I [requested priority handling]; requested Runway XXL (the longest runway) for approach and landing. I requested and received non normal landing data via ACARS and notified ZZZ operations of our situation.I notified my flight attendants of the problem using the briefing format; advising a landing in 10 minutes. I addressed the passengers via the PA of our problem; and assured them of a successful outcome.At approximately 15 miles out on the ILS Runway XXL; I completed the checklist items of configuring the flaps to 15 via the alternate method and completed the dual response landing checklist. At 10 miles on the ILS I assumed the role of Pilot flying and landed.Landing and rollout was normal. We continued to the gate and advised maintenance. After all passengers had deplaned; I debriefed with the crew and thanked each of them for their excellent work.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a flap disagree during approach. The flight crew executed a missed approach; were able to set the flaps using an alternate method; and continued to a normal landing.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was cleared PANOCHE THREE ARRIVAL into OAK. Upon handoff to ZOA; was re-routed direct EMZOH; EMZOH ONE ARRIVAL with RWY 30 transition. Knew NorCal TRACON (NCT) lands all business jet aircraft RWY 28L or RWY 28R but 28R NOTAMD closed. I told ZOA I did not want to re-program FMS with different RWYs and transitions in the terminal environment as this was unsafe. ZOA handed off to NCT. NCT Controller was unable to provide RWY 28L transition and advised next sector would comply with our request for 28L. Meanwhile; continued descent and complied with all speed and altitude constraints on EMZOH ONE with RWY 30 transition. NCT handoff [us] to next sector. Finally that NCT Controller assigned us 28L transition and told us expect RNAV (GPS) y 28L Approach. After re-programming FMS at least 3 times during descent; finally got approach loaded and landing performance numbers in FMS at 12;700 FT MSL; in busy terminal environment; way too late; and way too low. Suggest ZOA coordinate with NCT to clear business jet aircraft on STAR to expected RWY transition at cruise altitude instead of this needless back and forth during descent. This practice is very dangerous as it distracts crews from their primary duties and responsibilities during high workload descent phase and requires FMS re-programming during sterile flight below FL180.




Synopsis: The flight crew reported that ATC issued several arrival changes close in to the airport; resulting in multiple programming changes to FMS while approaching 10;000 feet.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climbout; at approximately 250 FT the engine started to lose power. Aircraft descended into pasture off end of runway and made an off field landing sustaining some damage.




Synopsis: After takeoff from a CTAF airport; a homebuilt aircraft lost power at about 250 FT; so the pilot landed off airport sustaining some damage.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OPLR.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center OPLR
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival at the aircraft for the trip; we were informed that the number one fuel indication was inoperative; and an MEL was issued and complied with by manually entering the fuel on the performance page. Fuel calculations were carried out in accordance with standard company procedures in flight. Approximately 30 minutes into the flight; the number one fuel indication repopulated; as did the totalizer; but we continued to operate per the MEL.Approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes into the flight we received a 'FUEL PRESS ENG 1' EICAS message approximately 10 minutes after selecting tank to engine fuel configuration. Upon viewing the fuel secondary EICAS page; we noted that both main fuel pumps in tank 1 indicated amber. Simultaneously; engine 1 rolled back to 30% N1; with no secondary indications. The QRH procedure was run in its entirety and; upon selecting override pump 2; engine 1 returned to normal N1. We called Operations to explain the situation and look for a suitable landing site; which we determined would have to be our destination due to insufficient fuel to turn back and Dispatch's direction not to divert. We declared minimum fuel for the rest of the flight and utilized an auto land at our destination without further incident. Upon blocking in; the quantity indicators for tanks 1 to 4 read: 0.0; 7.1; 11.6 and 4.0 respectively. Approximately 10 minutes after block in; the number 1 tank changed to 14.7; with no changes made to the fueling quantity or system.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: The flight crew of a B747-400; dispatched with an inoperative #1 fuel quantity indicator inoperative; suffered additional fuel system anomalies with the number one system including a temporary rollback of engine on N1 when they switched to 'main tank to engine' configuration.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Origination and taxi out were standard. Tower cleared us for takeoff. I advanced the thrust and called 'set power.' Shortly thereafter I observed another carrier CRJ quickly approaching the runway on the taxiway. I pulled the thrust to idle; called for an abort and transferred the controls to the Captain. We exited the runway and brought the aircraft to a safe stop on the taxiway. We conducted the Aborted Takeoff Checklist; reviewed the brake cooling procedure and returned for a departure after 15 minutes. The remainder of the flight was conducted standard. Abort was conducted as soon as it was obvious that the CRJ was taxiing onto the runway.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 First Officer initiated a rejected takeoff when he noted another CRJ encroaching on their runway at high speed.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the FTHLS3 Departure; just prior to VANZZ; we were given a clearance to 'climb via except maintain FL210'. The FO and I both agreed that we understood that we were cleared to continue our climb to FL210 and this deleted our hold down altitude of 8;000 feet at VANZZ. As we approached VANZZ we received a TCAS TA followed by an RA. We immediately acquired visual contact with other aircraft and the FO properly responded to RA guidance. After we were clear of the conflict we continued our climb to FL210 without further incident. As we discussed what had occurred; we determined that we may have misinterpreted the ATC Controllers instructions and that he intended for us to meet the VANZZ crossing restriction before climbing to FL210. We both felt that we had not actually climbed above 8;000 feet before VANZZ; but we're not certain.


Second narrative: I think the word 'except' in the clearance led us to a bias in interpretation of the restrictions. This is because the most common instances of 'except' altitudes tend to be in PDCs; and the 'except' altitude is almost always the most restrictive. I think this led me to think FL210 was the new restriction; not the 8;000 feet at VANZZ.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported confusion when cleared to 'climb via' the PHX FTHLS3 departure that may have led to an altitude excursion.