elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a departure; which takes the aircraft several miles south of [the airport]; then turns them out to the east. Lead Controller East (LCE) cleared Aircraft X for takeoff. As he climbed past the departure end of the runway; LCE instructed the pilot to contact departure. Seconds later; Aircraft X was observed in a hard left turn to the east. LCE scrambled to coordinate with the departure controller; but fortunately there were no conflicts with other aircraft and the departure controller kept Aircraft X in his turn. However; this is a common occurrence at [this airport]. The departure is flown over a hundred times a day and by each airline serviced by ATCT; but Aircraft X's Company is the only airline that ever deviates from it. I would estimate twice a month a Aircraft X company jet deviates from the SID and turns early. Typically; the LCE controller or even the departure controller is able to turn them back to the SID; but this is critical because an early eastbound turn from [departure airport] (in a south flow) cuts directly across the departure corridors at both [nearby] airports. The controllers at [departure airport] know to watch specifically for [a specific carrier] to turn early on that SID; but they should be able to expect a pilot to follow the SID every time. I have never seen any other carrier make this error; just Aircraft X's Company.The problem must be with the onboard equipment in the Aircraft X [company aircraft]. I would like to see Aircraft X company address the equipment issue; and/or educate the pilots on the matter. The airspace between [nearby] airports can get extremely congested; with both VFR and IFR aircraft. I believe it is only a matter of time before a significant occurrence due to an unexpected turn by a jet through this airspace.




Synopsis: Tower Front Line Manager (FLM) reported an aircraft and others with the same company deviate from the assigned SID. The reporter stated this is the only company he sees that do this. The aircraft departed and turned the wrong direction. This turn cuts right across two other ATC control zones.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We were] approaching the ZEEKK2 RNAV arrival into IAH with the first fix starting at SWB VOR when ATC changed our arrival to GESNR1 arrival due to runway change. I; the Flying Pilot; watched the Non-flying Pilot put the new arrival into the FMS and proceeded to check the arrival. At this time; we were given a heading 10 to the right and slow to MACH .76 or less. Approximately 5 to 10 min later; we were given direct ZEEKK on the descent via GESNR1 arrival; published speeds at ZEEKK. We proceeded to comply with the clearance. As we crossed ZEEKK we were told we were off course from ZEEKK and below altitude. ATC proceeded to vector us on the arrival. We noticed that the FMS had stayed on the ZEEKK2 arrival other than the GESNR1 Arrival.Should have crossed checked the FMS one more time again before crossing ZEEKK. Still puzzling why it changed back to the ZEEKK2 arrival.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into IAH when they got a last minute change in runway assignment but the new arrival was not correctly loaded in the FMS.
Date: 201907
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; 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: At XA08z the Captain ACARSed to say 'Odor from packs after engine start; it cleared out a few minutes into climb.' At XA09z Captain ACARSed to say flight attendants are now not feeling well and will need to be replaced in ZZZ. Please advise Scheduling' At XA10z Captain ACARS to say 'Pilots feeling fine; please have Maintenance meet aircraft.' I called Inflight Scheduling and I called Maintenance to advise both of the situation. However; I did NOT notify the Supervisor on Duty; and I should have. My apologies for this oversight on my part. The flight continued to destination without any further ACARS relating to this matter. Upon arrival it was my understanding that all 3 flight attendants were replaced in ZZZ. After arrival to ZZZ; I spoke to the Captain on a 3-way call with Maintenance Control. The Captain indicated the odor [similar] to smell 'Foul and like garbage.' He indicated that it did not seem like a chemical smell and also indicated after the climb the smell dissipated in the cockpit.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported receiving ACARS messages from the flight crew regarding odor on aircraft and requesting service coordination at destination.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Newark air traffic control announced a drone was in the vicinity of the EWR airport. The first officer was flying the aircraft for landing on runway 4R following the ILS glide path. We were looking for the drone and as I was setting the flaps as requested by the first officer; the first officer saw the drone momentarily as it flew above our aircraft. I did not see it and neither did the other first officer (We were on an international flight and so we had a crew of 3). We landed the aircraft safely and the rest of the flight was normal.




Synopsis: A heavy jet at 1;500 feet on the EWR Runway 4R ILS reported a UAS passed overhead their aircraft.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBGR.TRACON, FO
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBGR
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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 Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [Flying the ANSUG 1A STAR/Rwy 09R ILS approach to SBGR the FMS turned us] from MARPU toward fix CI09R when [ATC cleared us to climb to 7;000 FT heading 090 for vectors for another approach]. When set up for the next approach the FMS now showed UTKET then CI09R. One must select the MARPU transition in order to get UTKET. CI09R is only in the B777 data base. It is not depicted on the 09R approach plates. It is very confusing. A second problem also occurred. The charts show the transition altitude is 8;000 FT. When we tried to level at 7;000 FT the B777 data base wanted FL070. It does not recognize feet until cleared below FL070. Very confusing.Our chart provider needs to sync up the plates with the B777 data base.


Second narrative: This time when we inserted the ILS 9R in the FMC in showed UTKET then CI09R. Seems one must select the MARPU transition for UTKET to show up.


Synopsis: When a B777-200 flight crew; arriving SBGR via the ANSUG 1A STAR; Runway 09R ILS; turned inside the charted track between westbound at MARPU (an IAF) on the STAR and eastbound at UTKET (a straight in IF on the approach) ATC directed a go-around. A mysterious fix CI09R inside of UTKET and prior to the LOM played a role. The aircraft's database also failed to utilize the published 8;000 MSL transition altitude.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Bonanza 35
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After briefing the flight on the ground; a friend and I decided to formation fly to a nearby airport for cheap fuel. We discussed direction; speed; and separation. During formation flight we agreed I would approach and fly at the 4 o'clock position of the lead ship and we would then fly a 120 heading. Approaching the lead ship from the rear right quadrant; we communicated on 122.75. I was 10 knots faster than he. I decreased power and added pitch to slow; which caused my left wing to block my view of his airplane as I climbed. On speed now; but view still blocked; I chose to maintain my current; higher altitude until I got him back in sight. Seconds later; I saw his ship nearly directly under me. He got me in sight at the same time. I put the airplane into a climbing right turn; while he descended away.From this; I have learned that flying in formation solo can be difficult with all of the blind spots in an airplane. Communication is also crucial. I should have voiced my concern right when I lost sight of his airplane. He should have done the same.We briefed flying at 110 knots; and when he stated he was doing 100 knots; I should have broken off and rejoined at proper speed rather than attempt to adjust my speed while joining.All in all; formation flight is overrated in my opinion. There is a lot of hazard associated for such little benefit.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reported losing visual contact of lead aircraft during airborne join-up; resulting in loss of separation.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: There is a processing problem with the URET HERT (blue) routing for the Atlanta arrivals. For some reason almost all aircraft arriving Atlanta now have a blue route for the ERLIN9 arrival. They are already on that arrival (most of the time); so the controllers are not able to quickly scan for 'color.' Instead; the URET is almost useless at the arrival sectors because every aircraft has a 'blue' route. Occasionally; there are aircraft that need to be taken from the ERLIN9 arrival and placed on the RMG4 or vice-versa. Again; it is impossible to separate these aircraft with a quick scan due to every single aircraft having the 'blue' route. If they are not assigned the correct routing; ATL Approach will be unsure of the routing they are on and could mistakenly assume the aircraft will fly a different course. The URET is a tool that uses color to bring issues to the Controller's attention; red for conflicts; yellow; blue; brown; green; etc. Recommendation; fix the URET flight plan processing problem. There should be some way to prevent aircraft from appearing with a blue route they do not need. Again; this makes the URET (a valuable safety tool) useless.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller voiced concern regarding the URET equipment noted that unless the described problem is resolved the value of URET as a safety tool is rendered useless.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Multiple complex things were happening which led to me potentially violating an Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) (I'm unsure as I couldn't tell if the was the warning stick of the actual MSAW alert).  During the lead up to the event there were multiple aircraft deviating for weather; a flight of Fighter jets had [requested priority handling]; and a C206 was having difficulty avoiding weather (as well as the pilot sounded spooked and afraid on frequency).  Aircraft X flight was returning to base from the military airspace and requested vectors for the TACAN14.  I vectored them Northwest outside of MUPEE descended them to 090 and gave them a turn to intercept the LMT314 radial.  During this time there was multiple pilot requests from other aircraft; NEXRAD weather to call; and several other things going on at the same time.  During the turn on; I believe the aircraft may have drifted; or may have gotten close to the 100 MIA just to the west of the LMT314 radial.During fighter missions to decrease sector pressure; Kingsley Approach could open up.  Also; while the approach quick cards on sector 10 are nice; trying to flip through the booklet and figure out which approach is which (they all look the same) was hard and became a distraction.  Maybe make the title of each approach reference card larger.  Also the MSAW warning vs alert looks the same (save for the warning stick.)  In this case; with tight quarters; NEXRAD weather overlaid; and multiple data-blocks; it was hard to decipher what exactly was happening.




Synopsis: A Seattle Center (ZSE) Controller reports of becoming busy and while vectoring an aircraft to final; the aircraft drifted close to a lower Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA).
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Sikorsky Helicopter Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Helicopter Gearbox and Drive
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During an IFR helicopter flight over the Gulf of Mexico at 5;000 feet; the MGB [Main Gear Box] Chip caution light illuminated. The emergency procedure was performed and there were no associated secondary indications. The Emergency Checklist called for a landing as soon as practical. History of the S92 has included a Main Transmission failure resulting in fatalities and our company trains us to treat any MBG issue very seriously. We elected to turn around and return to a shore based heliport or airport for landing. I had slowed the aircraft to 100 knots airspeed during the EP and the second in command began attempting to advise the Center Controller. The frequency is weak in this coverage area and was congested. After the third call to the Controller and being told to 'Just Standby'; I chose to begin my turn to the airport. Subsequently; he saw the turn and questioned our action. The SIC stated: we had a MGB Chip and need to return and descend to a lower altitude. He began chastising us for deviating from our clearance. I came up on the radio and explained that we had tried to contact him several times and in the event of an emergency I was authorized to deviate as required. He then gave us an immediate descent to 4;000 feet and an immediate climb to 6;000 feet to the aircraft behind us. Prior to being handed off to Approach; I was instructed to call a phone number after landing for 'Possible Violation action.' We landed at and during approach the Input 2 Chip caution light illuminated also. Both chip plugs had excessive metal particles and the aircraft was grounded. Reflecting back on the situation; I should have immediately announced 'Emergency' over the Center frequency to get the Controller's attention and gain priority over the other traffic thereby getting expedited handling.




Synopsis: S92 Captain experiences a MGB chip light at 5;000 feet over the Gulf of Mexico and elects to return to the departure airport. ATC cannot be contacted immediately due to frequency congestion and a turn back is initiated prior to receiving clearance. A second chip light illuminates prior to landing.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Tower, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon departure from ATL Runway 8R; we encountered severe wake turbulence passing through 600 feet AGL until about 1;000 feet AGL. Momentary full left aileron deflection was necessary to maintain directional control. Three large rolling moments were experienced over a span of approximately 10-15 seconds. The preceding aircraft was an A321.A321 wake turbulence; light quartering crosswind kept the wake over the runway centerline.Realize that wake turbulence is not always directly related to weight and small airbus aircraft are very heavily loaded on a small wing.

Callback: Reporter stated he was surprised at the severity of the wake turbulence since it was not a heavy jet they were following.



Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported encountering severe wake turbulence shortly after takeoff departing ATL in trail of an A321.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft of unknown type overtook me. In cruise; I looked out my right window and saw the aircraft approaching from my 4 o'clock at a range of 200 feet; approximately 100 feet below me. Before I ever had the chance to take evasive action; the aircraft had already passed behind me; nearly striking my empennage with approximately 50 feet between the two aircraft.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft in the vicinity of PDX.