elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30; Tower LAS
Second aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our TCAS was MELed. CPDLC (Controller Pilot DataLink Communication) clearance was to climb via a SID. 19000 was the top altitude. We had a 9000 foot hold down programmed in the MCP. LNAV was armed. Tower cleared us to 'Line up and wait; report the departing Embraer in sight.' After takeoff; upwind in the climb; Tower said 'Don't turn inside the Embraer; contact Departure.' I'm thinking we are on a climb via clearance. Lateral and vertical path is locked in. The aircraft is about to turn; and it's going to turn inside the Embraer contrary to the Controller's direction. It seems to me if he wants us to do something different than the SID because of a traffic conflict; he needs to assign us a heading and/or altitude and officially relieve us from the Climb Via clearance. We decided to stay on SID based on our official clearance. I contacted Departure and stated; '4300 climbing via the SHEAD 1.' Meanwhile; I had the Embraer in sight and our courses were converging. I can't remember exactly how Departure Control replied; but essentially it was that the Embraer traffic is 'diverging' and to maintain 6000 feet'. We were converging and if the TCAS was operable; it would at least be giving us a TA alert if not an RA.I am not sure exactly what happened with ATC in this situation. I don't know what departure the Embraer was on and how it should have been appropriately handled with our departure. It just seemed the conflict was handled last-minute and not appropriately.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported receiving conflicting clearances from ATC; which resulted in confliction with other departing traffic.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: PC-12
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Hemet radar combined with Norton radar. ZLA 19 was handing off a regional jet on the DSNEE arrival; as well as an IFR Pilatus; which was descending out of ~15;000. The Pilatus appeared to be on a vector to parallel the DSNEE arrival. ZLA 19 is supposed to put these arrivals in trail; in a flow as one. The Controller didn't coordinate anything; and when I advised my supervisor of the situation; he called the Controller (or the supe?) and advised them I would not be taking the Pilatus that was off the flow. The Pilatus was spun and the CRJ ended up coming over the DSNEE arrival fixes high because of the poor planning with the Pilatus. The next arrival; was a B737 on the DSNEE that was only given 130; not descending via the arrival.The ZLA controllers continually attempt to come up with ways of not meeting their flows; and putting the burden of in-trail separation on the Hemet controllers. When we do not; or cannot; accommodate their poor planning; the results are terrible service to the next controllers and the pilots. If this situation would have happened with a SIZLR arrival crossing through; it could have been a lot worse. These situations are going to result in a dangerous situation in this area.The ZLA controllers need guidance on how they need to flow M Class airplanes into the airspace. Speed control seems to not be an option for them. The LOA says the aircraft shall be flowed in to Hemet in trail and spaced. This needs to start happening. This is just another example of how the Hemet sector is being overloaded with too many tasks.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported that Los Angeles Center Controller did not follow the Letter of Agreement (LOA) with two aircraft inbound to the reporters sector.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After being vectored onto final approach; and between the outer marker and runway; a faint odor similar to burnt rubber was noticed by the crew. There was no smoke visible. After landing and shutting down the aircraft the odor disappeared. Both crew members felt physically fine. Company and maintenance were contacted; and the discrepancy was documented.


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


Synopsis: CE-560 flight crew reported fumes during landing approach which dissipated after shutting down engines.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting a personal flight to practice pattern work. ATC cleared my flight for Runway XX; right traffic pattern. I departed the runway; and soon after ATC cleared me for option for Runway XX. As soon as the plane touch down on Runway XX; it started to veer left. In that process; it departed the runway and entered the grass patch between the runway and taxiway. I tried to apply brakes; but it felt that the airplane was tipping to one side. I waited for few more seconds and applied brakes again to regain control of the airplane. The airplane came to a stop on Runway XY. I requested for taxi back to the hangars; and Tower cleared me for it.I was using ForeFlight; along with a Stratus device during the flight. Upon inspecting my track log; my speed on short final was between 60 and 65 knots which is the normal airspeed I fly in this plane all the time. I have around 27 hours in the same airplane.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported temporarily loss of aircraft control during landing rollout resulting in runway excursion.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IPAD issues. 1. Blocks my view out of right side of aircraft. View is already restricted due to narrow slit side windows. 2. I have to make unusual gyrations in cockpit in order to see traffic in the air/on the ground and taxi lines out of right side of aircraft when parking. 3. First Officers are slow in switching between pages...they are constantly asking me for ramp/ops frequencies which previously were either written on paper pages or more readily accessed by flipping a paper page with one's finger. 4. Some First Officers do not know how to dim the device at night causing a very bright distraction in dark cockpit. 5. Have caught some First Officers looking at info other than the airport diagram while taxiing; i.e.; INTERNET stuff; pictures or newspapers/magazines. Summary: My biggest beef is the visibility issue which is not that good to start with; followed by the speed at which info is accessed; followed by the distraction of poor discipline in the proper use of the device. The IPAD needs to be mounted on the existing chart holder in the aircraft which is located well below the side window! I am most certain that some simple clamp/bracket can accommodate the light weight of the IPAD on the existing side chart holder. First Officers need additional training in accessing ramp/ops/ice frequency data bases for each airport without bugging the Captain while he is driving the boat...this was not a problem before IPAD use. I should not have to remind a First Officer to stick with pertinent gouge on his IPAD. He can look at his pictures/INTERNET in the hotel room.




Synopsis: A Captain comments on a variety of issues caused by adaptation of iPad technology including visual disruptions while taxiing; visual interference; difficulty accessing information in a timely manner; and device speed.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CZQX.ARTCC, NF
Light: Night
Aircraft: B787-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A CZQX
ATC / advisory: Center CZQX
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Random route over the Atlantic. Using SLOP (Strategic Lateral Offset Procedure); 1 mile right. After midpoint check and before N58W050; I performed a wind update. After wind update was executed; we noticed N58W050 waypoint was white on the navigation display and had dropped from the FMC. Our follow-on waypoint; N60W040 was now the active waypoint. Captain attempted to reload N58W50 as the active waypoint; but the FMC kicked it out. Captain used heading select to stay on track and fly over N58W050. Once reaching N58W050 he selected direct N60W040 and we proceeded on track.There is an [industry] posting referencing FMC anomaly BP3A that Boeing has not resolved. This anomaly is very similar to what we experienced. Upon arrival; Captain entered anomaly in the logbook. Until this anomaly is corrected by Boeing; I suggest not updating winds while on a track or random route over the Atlantic.


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


Synopsis: B787 flight crew reported an anomaly with the navigation function of the FMC during an update of the winds on an oceanic route.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bellanca Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying with the owner of a tailwheel aircraft who had just purchased the airplane. I was in the right seat as instructor and he was in the left seat as PIC. It was agreed to prior to the flight that he would be the PIC as required by his insurance company. In addition; the airplane only had brakes on the left side; and it was discussed prior to takeoff that the owner would be responsible for application of brakes during the flight. An approach to landing was being made with a 30 degree crosswind; wind speed about 8 KTS. The owner was attempting a wheel landing. He had a slight bounce and the airplane turned to the left; not aligned with the runway.I attempted to recover by applying aileron into the wind and opposite rudder to align with the runway. The airplane was in contact with the ground and I felt that applying full power for a go-around at that point would make the swerve worse and that brakes applied correctly would correct the swerve. I told the owner to apply right brake; the aircraft continued to turn to the left and the plane had turned from [one] runway onto [another] runway at the intersection; [and] I repeated [my instruction] to apply the brake. The plane was on the outer south edge of the runway and just prior to the aircraft stopping the prop struck a runway light. Proper application of brakes could have prevented the event.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot in an Aeronca Chief reported the student lost directional control on landing and struck a runway light.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PAE.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PAE
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Trainee; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: ATC radar vectors to PAE level 3000. RA received for light aircraft ~2500 ft with instruction to climb. Followed RA guidance to climb then level off ~3300 ft with autopilot and auto throttle decoupled. Reported to ATC of RA . Received further clearance to maintain 3000; then 2000 for vectors RNAv 34. Visual condition.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Fist Officer reported receiving an RA on approach to PAE.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Take Off Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taxied from the FBO to the runway at ZZZ. After being cleared for takeoff started the takeoff roll and began to feel the nose-wheel start to shake around 40 knots. The takeoff was aborted and we exited the runway. The nose-gear pin was most likely not secured completely allowing it to wiggle loose during taxi. There was minor damage to the nose-wheel(tire only) but it remained completely inflated. We re-secured the gear pin and taxied to FBO whereas our company maintenance arranged for the tire to be changed. Work was performed and signed off by maintenance.


Second narrative: On takeoff roll nose wheel started vibrating and we realized the nose wheel pin was not installed. We didn't get far down runway about 40 knots; So we aborted takeoff. Put the pin in on taxiway taxied back to FBO; and saw that there was some damage to tire. Told our management and they decided to change the tire.


Synopsis: Air Taxi flight crew reported during takeoff the nose wheel was vibrating due to the nose gear pin not secured so they rejected the take off and taxied back to the FBO.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CID.Airport, IA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CID
ATC / advisory: TRACON CID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Leveling at 2;700 MSL cleared for ILS Runway 27 CID. ATC issued a low altitude alert and while our altimeter indicated that we were 300' above the cleared altitude; we executed an immediate go around and commenced a climb to the ATC issued altitude of 3;000 MSL. Upon level off; we realized that the altimeters had been incorrectly set during the descent check. We obtained the correct local altimeter setting from ATC and returned to the desired aircraft state. We returned for another ILS to Runway 27 at CID and landed uneventfully. The probable cause was that the altimeter was set incorrectly do to confusion with an ATC received altimeter setting and failure to verify the correct setting. During the pre-descent ATIS check both crew members wrote the correct altimeter setting. During the descent we set the altimeter according to an ATC issued altimeter setting which we both believe we heard correctly.


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


Synopsis: Medium Large transport flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on the approach to CID. They discovered they had the wrong altimeter setting entered.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Inbound to ORD we were cleared from FL220 to FL200 then immediately given a clearance to cross I believe HULLS way point at I believe 11;000 feet. I immediately increased my descent rate deploying the speed brakes to make the crossing restriction. Almost immediately as well the controller called in a very terse tone and told us that we better make the crossing restriction because 'There would be NO relief on it.'My First Officer responded and then I told him that I would take it. I contacted the Controller and told him that I wanted to check and see if we had it right that we were cleared from FL220 to FL200 and then to cross at 11;000 feet. The Controller came back and jumped on me and said that I had better pick up the descent rate because I was only descending at 900 FPM. He told me that I needed to click off the autopilot and 'Stick fly' the airplane if I was going to make it. I responded that he was now flying my airplane for me and that we would make that crossing restriction to which he said 'OK.'His tone was unbelievable! We did nothing wrong and made the crossing no problem. The problem I had is that I could not get him and his rant out of my mind all the way down the arrival and approach. It created an unsafe condition as I was very distracted from my required duties. Thankfully we landed safely but I have no idea why he felt it appropriate to talk to us that way. In my opinion the tapes need to be pulled and his conduct needs to be examined.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that a ZAU Controller made inappropriate and unprofessional comments on frequency; causing a distraction.