elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCK.Airport, CA
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D SCK
ATC / advisory: Tower SCK
Second aircraft: Super King Air 350
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local Control position. Runway 11L/R in use. Marginal VFR conditions with 5 miles visibility and a ceiling of 3;000 FT beginning to deteriorate with incoming rain. Prior to any aircraft on frequency; NCT Supervisor requested an opposite direction approach with a circle to land Runway 11 for Aircraft X; which I approved. Despite having read the new briefing on Opposite Direction; I mistook circling to land on the advertised runway as a same direction arrival; which ultimately led to the following errors: Aircraft Z was on final for Runway 11L; cleared for the option and given left closed VFR traffic on the go. Aircraft X was approximately 8-9 mile final. I called for release on Aircraft W; with a flow time. I received the release; reference Aircraft X. I believed this to mean to ensure visual separation; which was covered under the old rules; but not under the new opposite direction rules. Weather conditions were continuing to deteriorate. I cleared Aircraft W for take off of Runway 11L after Aircraft Z started his left crosswind; with Aircraft Y on approximately 2-3 mile final Runway 11L; cleared for the option with a left turn heading 050 on the go. Aircraft W began his right turn to a 200 heading with Aircraft X approximately 4.5 mile final for Runway 29R circle Runway 11L; Aircraft Y crossed the threshold; and began take off roll. Aircraft Y lifted up with Aircraft X still on final for 29R circle 11L; Aircraft X was instructed to circle south of the field. I began Aircraft Y's left turn while Aircraft X continued inbound. Aircraft X circled south as instructed. I believe had I read the briefing again after becoming unsure of whether a circling aircraft on an opposite direction approach was considered an opposite direction arrival; and broken off Aircraft X on initial call or called NCT to have them break of Aircraft X sooner; this situation would have been averted.




Synopsis: SCK Controller experienced a loss of legal separation with regard to the new 'Opposite Direction Procedure' with a departing aircraft and another on a 'Circling Approach'; the reporter not realizing the new directive applied to this event.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TTN.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D TTN
ATC / advisory: Tower TTN
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being cleared for takeoff; I taxied onto the runway and lined up on the center line. As I applied full power; Tower said to an aircraft on very short final 'did you just do a short approach?' The pilot of the second aircraft said 'we did a modified base to final.' At this point my aircraft was about 300 ft. AGL and Tower told the aircraft that did a short approach to go around. Tower advised the aircraft that went around to side step to the right. This caused a near mid air collision. The pilot should have asked for a short approach instead of just doing it.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported an NMAC shortly after takeoff from TTN airport with an aircraft on a go-around.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were lined up and waiting then cleared for takeoff with only one engine operating. I advanced the thrust levers and checked the engine parameters and noticed the engine was not running. This was the First Officer's first trip off of IOE and I am somewhat new to the airplane and airport. The First Officer told me he was accustomed to single engine taxiing and receiving the delay engine start command. In the interest of safety I have been starting both engines after push. I feel it is better for me; at this point in my career to accomplish as much work as possible while stationary to have both pilots' heads up for taxi. We pushed off the gate and started engine 2. We received the wave off and I FIRMLY believe I commanded an engine 1 start. I failed to properly verify engine number one's operation. Then I was distracted with helping with frequencies and taxi instructions. After we taxied clear of the runway the First Officer stated he did not hear the delay engine start command. I do not understand why; if the First Officer knew the engine was not running; he let me proceed or why he did not mention the delay engine start procedure.


Second narrative: During routine taxi to Runway XXR; Captain neglected to call for a delayed engine start check. Still being a little overwhelmed at ZZZ (high mins; First Officer) I failed to recognize and prompt the Captain that we need to start engine Number 1. We performed a before takeoff checklist and were then cleared to line up and wait. Moments after being cleared for takeoff; just as the Captain was setting thrust; I noticed and announced we had no power on engine 1. We exited the runway at [Taxiway X]; informed Tower; started engine Number 1; and got back in line for takeoff; taking off 4 minutes later. We never accelerated past taxi speed; took the first right turn off; rest of trip uneventful.


Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a cockpit miscommunication caused an engine not be started prior to takeoff and resulted in an aborted takeoff.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Tower called for a release on Aircraft X and a release was given. The aircraft checked on and I climbed the aircraft to 19;000 feet and indicated so on the strip. About 15-20 minutes later Aircraft X asked if they were still with me. I looked for them on the scope in my airspace and in the adjacent Center's airspace; and asked them to verify code. I checked for a Departure message and the flight plan was already departed. They verified their squawk code. The code came up about 45 miles into the adjacent Center airspace at 19;000 feet. I called the adjacent sector; got the data block tracked up and gave Radar Contact. I don't know for sure; but suspect the transponder was never turned on.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reported failing to acquire a Departure Controller's data tag on their radarscope and forgetting about the aircraft; which entered adjacent airspace without a hand off.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Maintenance; Person Passenger
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; [we] heard a thump as we were rotating. Assumed it was just hitting a runway centerline light. In cruise; the Lead Flight Attendant came to the cockpit and told us the passenger had observed rubber flying by his window on takeoff. All our indications were normal; no hydraulic or fuel leaks. Landing was normal. After parking at gate; Mechanic got on the flight interphone and reported to me that a tire was blown and there was damage to the underside of the wing. I went down to observe damage and noted the tire tread was totally missing and there were several rubber streaks and punctures in the underside of the wing and one trailing edge flap.

Callback: Reporter stated they were flying a B747-400 aircraft out of an international airport. Although they did hear a 'thump' on rotation; they did not see any indication in the flight deck of an aircraft issue. In fact; they didn't even know about a possible tire problem until three hours into the flight when their Lead Flight Attendant informed them that a passenger had seen pieces of rubber fly past his window.Reporter stated they had a normal landing; but Maintenance did find the right main wing landing gear was missing the tread cap on a main tire; a large gash in the inboard flap; [lower] surface and punctures in the lower wing panels. Maintenance also showed her where an anti-skid box on the same gear was badly damaged; but there were no anti-skid indication issues noted during flight or on landing.Reporter stated the departing airport's Control Tower had not communicated any tire issue during takeoff; mostly because the right wing gear was on the opposite side of the aircraft from the Tower's view.



Synopsis: A pilot reports hearing a 'thump' during departure rotation of their B747-400 aircraft. Passenger later notified Flight Attendant about seeing rubber flying past their window. All cockpit indications were normal. After arrival; Mechanic finds the right main wing landing gear; main tire tread cap was missing; inboard flap had large gash; with rubber marks and punctures in the lower wing.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MFR.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MFR
ATC / advisory: Tower MFR
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the visual approach into MFR the pilot placed the landing gear down and the right main green light did not illuminate to indicate that the right main gear was down and locked. The pilot recycled the gear and went around. The pilot flew by MFR Tower with the landing gear down to have them look to see if the gear appeared down. The Tower stated that the landing gear appeared down. The flight was landed in MFR without incident. The pilot continually pressed the landing gear cube and worked it and eventually the right main light turned on indicating the gear was down and locked.




Synopsis: Beech 1900 Captain reported not having indications of gear down and locked caused an emergency landing.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I thought I cleared Aircraft X to cross WARPU at or above 130 for the RNAV 16 at AFO. WARPU is on the border of 120 and 130 MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) area. While calling traffic for other aircraft in the area; I noticed Aircraft X descending below 130. At the time the other aircraft was responding and before the frequency was free Aircraft X was over WARPU at 120. Aircraft X continued on the approach.Prioritize watching aircraft that are descending close to the MIA and be ready to correct them if they go below their cleared altitude.




Synopsis: ZLC Center Controller reported an aircraft descended below a crossing altitude at WARPU intersection.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Preflight aircraft with intent to go to ZZZ-ZZZ1-ZZZ2 as [Flight] #XXXX for both legs. [During] early stages of preflight to ZZZ1; we received notice the leg to ZZZ1 was canceled and that we would be flying to ZZZ2 two hrs from that moment; so we call to [go] back inside to get paperwork and wait it out. We return to the same jet to preflight for ZZZ-ZZZ2 Flight #XXXX (same # as canceled ZZZ1 leg). ACARS initial page showed [Flight] #XXXX to ZZZ2. First Officer logs on to CPDLC for clearance and it comes in as [RNAV Departure] as filed. This is the same departure we were scheduled for our ZZZ1 leg earlier. We see the clearance and set cockpit up for [RNAV Departure]. We push; taxi; and takeoff with normal operations. We climb to FL340. While leveling off; ZZZ Center tells us we are cleared to [fix]. We reply that [the fix] is not on our [flight plan]. He says he is showing us filed [the fix]. We reply with our filed route to ZZZ2. He asked us to confirm we are going to ZZZ2 and we confirmed. Prior to [fix] on the [RNAV Departure]; and prior to any route deviation; he gives us present heading. A few minutes later he issues us a route to ZZZ2.  The mistake...Both Captain and First Officer miss that the CPDLC clearance that was received on our ZZZ-ZZZ2 [Flight] #XXXX preflight was for ZZZ-ZZZ1 [Flight] #XXXX. We taxi and takeoff as [Flight] #XXXX but ATC thinks we are going to ZZZ1 as [Flight] #XXXX and we think ZZZ2 [Flight] #XXXX.  Suggestion...changing the flight # for the leg once the first one is canceled or cancel the flight plan in the system once the flight is canceled by Flight Control. The flight plan was still in the system almost 3 hours later and our Flight Plane to ZZZ2 never came up in the clearance. We should never have 2 flight plan in the system with the same flight plan prior to taxi.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported receiving an incorrect clearance via CPDLC because the ATC system had two flight plans for the same aircraft flight number.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 50
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were enroute to TEB at 4000 feet; approximately 24 NM southwest of UNVIL; it was VMC; and we were on vectors for Runway 19 at TEB; when the controller issued a left turn and a climb to 5000 feet. As we acknowledged the instructions; we saw an aircraft on our TCAS; and simultaneously spotted the aircraft visually. We received an RA (Resolution Advisory) and immediately complied; descending and turning right to avoid the aircraft which came within 200 feet of our aircraft. We advised the controller immediately that we were complying with the RA; and he instructed us to continue the descent to 3000 feet. We continued on to TEB without further incident.




Synopsis: DA-50 First Officer reported a near mid-air collision while on vectors to TEB.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: All CRJ aircraft were experiencing what I was told was a solar flare causing widespread outages on our company aircraft.  I spoke to Dispatch and Maintenance Control to find out what was going on with the system.  I asked if I should put the aircraft on MX and was told by Maintenance that it was not an airplane problem but a satellite GPS issue.  Dispatch was busy working on our land based navigation flight plan which I requested.  Maintenance and Dispatch both cleared us as airworthy as long as ATC was able to read our transponder with a correct altitude.  We checked in with ATC several times asking for altitude verification.  At no time did we stray of or show any signs of an altitude deviation. We flew safely to our destination.  The next evening after talking to fellow pilots; we thought maybe we could have been not certified for RVSM airspace.  Our filed altitude was FL320 we accepted the clearance but chose to fly at FL300 instead for a smoother ride.  Apparently the GPS outage might have been misdiagnosed by MX Control and Dispatch.  We complied with all navigation and flight rules as per SOP.GPS outage failed identify the problem.  Dispatch; Maintenance; and flight crew worked hard but missed the diagnosis. Continue work as a team to identify solutions.

Callback: Pilot was later told by company the issue was caused by a software problem.



Synopsis: CRJ-200 Flying Pilot reported a system wide GPS failure.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An A320 was at FL320 requesting FL360 because they were getting a choppy ride. I told him that I had his request; there was and aircraft at FL340 flying right over the top of him. Once he cleared the FL340 traffic I climbed him to FL360. Before I climbed the A320 I did a quick traffic scan thinking in the back of my head he was at FL340. Thinking that he was at FL340 rather than FL320 I did not see any traffic for him and climbed him. There was an Air Carrier southbound at FL330 missed the traffic because I thought the A320 was at FL340. I turned both aircraft 30 right; one second later; both were responding to a RA. Double check the altitude of the aircraft requesting higher and note the Data Block.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller described a loss of separation event when neglecting to properly scan the Data Block altitude information before assigning another altitude.