elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: TCAS Equipment
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising at 38;000 feet in VFR conditions the TCAS RA alert sounded. The First Officer and I performed the memory items and initiated the commanded climb. I advised ATC of our situation and was told by the controller that no other aircraft were observed in our area. TCAS then commanded us to descend and we also complied while looking outside for any intruding aircraft. The alert then said we were clear and went away. We regained our original altitude with no further conversation with ATC. All appeared normal and we determined the alert was false. The TCAS gave us 2 more false alarms. The 2nd was level at 30;000 feet and the 3rd was at 3;000 feet. While being vectored for the ILS Approach. Once on the ground the faulty TCAS was written up. Maintenance and Dispatch were made aware of the problem. After talking to Maintenance I was informed the TCAS system had been a continuing problem with multiple write-ups. I believe we were the first to get an RA alert; but it would've helped if someone had given us a heads up.




Synopsis: A Flight Crew reported receiving false TCAS RA advisories and stated maintenance told them it was a recurring issue with their aircraft.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were established on a long final for Runway X with gear down and flaps at 5 due to being brought in a bit high and fast earlier. We were told 180 kts to the bridge. At 1;200 feet above the field the Pilot Monitoring who was the First Officer said; 'Do you want more flaps?' I realized at that moment that I was pondering the economics of this virus on our airline; and thinking about my fears of a furlough. Had the First Officer not said something I really don't know how long I would have remained distracted. We finished configuring and were stable and configured by 800 feet AGL.I never imagined that I would be able to be distracted at such a vital time. I thought myself too focused and professional to allow that. Apparently this situation plays on my mind and concerns more than I realized. Just being aware of this threat is vital. I wish I could warn everyone that this can happen. There is so much nonstop doom and gloom and fear coming at us from all directions; I must be aware of the threat and stay focused.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported that concerns about COVID-19 and possible furlough resulted in an unstabilized approach.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: As we began to get vectors off the arrival due to weather; approach control assigned us a different runway than we had brief and expected. The new approach was the ILS PRM (Precision Runway Monitor) Runway XXL into ZZZ. Seconds after the runway change we were assigned direct ZZZZZ and cleared for the approach. This gave us no time to brief the new approach and due to that we forgot to put in the monitor frequency. We continued on the approach. During the approach the first officer had trouble switching from white needles to green needles. This caused us to deviate from the localizer. The captain realized the mistake shortly after and made the first officer correct before we were 1 dot off the localizer so we continue the approach and landed safelyThe cause of this was lack of briefing a possible PRM approach. We had brief both runways but we were not aware that PRM's were in use due to the fact they were not advertised on the ATIS. The slight deviation on the localizer was due to task saturation on the first officer's part. [ATC] should start advertising PRM approaches when they are actually using them. As pilots we should recognize the threat that ZZZ sometimes is using PRM approaches even though they are not advertised.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported not being aware of the Precision Runway Monitor in use because it was not advertised on ATIS.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 F Executive 21
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Beechcraft Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was in pattern and announcing position. ADSB [Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast] showed approaching aircraft at same altitude and less than 1 mile coming toward me while I was on final. Bonanza; easy to [identify] that close; did not announce down wind; base; [and] final. I asked on UNICOM if he saw me as he was turning toward me (his base turn)...he replied yes and veered behind me. I extended my landing to over 1/3 down runway with no idea where he was. He did not say anything more after acknowledging my question. As we rolled off runway to taxi to terminal; he was less than 100 feet behind me. He had landed behind me! I tried to speak with him but he had macho attitude and said it was my fault...I spoke with FBO; they had UNICOM radio on; they confirmed he did not announce downwind; base or final.




Synopsis: Mooney pilot reported while on final approach; another aircraft followed closely behind and landed within 100 feet behind him.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At 37;000 feet (while IMC) we were given a climb to 39;000.   As I spun the altitude and hit VNAV to start climbing; my airspeed rapidly went from 259 KIAS to 218 KIAS and began approaching the yellow bar on the airspeed tape.  Initially I thought we were losing airspeed in the climb and were getting too slow.  I tried to slow the climb rate and selected Vertical Speed and spun the dial inadvertently to a descent.  We lost a couple hundred feet and I saw 36;800 on the altimeter.  ATC did not mention this altitude deviation. I then received the airspeed and altitude unreliable messages and performed the memory items and cross checked the Captain's side which was showing accurate data.  I clicked off my autopilot B and selected the Captain's autopilot A. We referenced the QRH and determined my pitot static probes may have frozen.  The Captain contacted MX thru Dispatch and I continued to fly with the A autopilot on.  We told ATC we were going to stay at 37;000.  After a few minutes; ATC queried us about our altitude and said we were showing 37;400 for the last two minutes.  We told them it was the transponder with the unreliable altitude on my side and I immediately switched the transponder to number one on the Captain's side.  ATC then said that fixed it and we were now showing level at 37;000 feet.  They did not seem concerned.  We told them we were non RVSM and descended to 27;000.  My airspeed and altitude came back at the lower altitude.  Rest of flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer experiences unreliable airspeed indication at FL370 in IMC. The autopilot is switched from B to A and the flight continues at FL370 until ATC questions a Mode C readout of FL374. The transponder is switched to the Captain's pitot static system and the flight descends out of RVSM airspace.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HRL.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 350
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C HRL
ATC / advisory: Tower HRL
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were flying into HRL repositioning for our passengers. We were cleared the ILS 17R approach. The Autopilot (AP) was flying. The chart indicated that we could descend to 1;400 feet 10 miles from the FAF. The FMS had the correct altitude and we put the AP controller into VNAV mode where it descended and captured the 1;400 feet altitude. It was a little late leveling off and we got to maybe 1;340 at the lowest. It then leveled off at 1;400 feet. The Tower Controller told us that we had a low level alert which showed us at 1;300 feet. The autopilot was already correcting the altitude and no further action was necessary. We got the runway in sight and were cleared to a visual approach for the parallel Runway 17L and landed without further incident.




Synopsis: BE350 Captain reports getting 60 feet low prior to the FAF at HRL with the autopilot flying; which results in a low altitude alert from the Tower. The autopilot corrects back to 1;400 feet and the approach is continued to landing.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I cleared Aircraft X for the ILS approach with 'maintain four thousand till intercepting the glideslope; cleared ILS ... approach'. Aircraft Y was going to the parallel runway at 3;000 feet. Aircraft X joined the final and immediately descended out of 4;000 feet. Final monitor corrected them and climbed them back up to 4;000 feet until the glideslope descended out of 4;000 feet again. Aircraft X descended out of 4000 feet next to Aircraft Y before Aircraft Y was established. We have requested 4;000 foot intersection points on the finals for a long time and this is the exact reason why. Even though the pilot knew exactly what I meant; he still descended to 3;000 feet even though the glideslope was way above their altitude. Technically; 'maintain an altitude until intercepting the glideslope' isn't approved phraseology; so having a crossing fix at 4;000 feet on every final would be a very nice option.


Second narrative: I was Pilot Flying with autopilot on. On base leg vectors to ILS at 4;000 ft approach control cleared us to turn to heading 190 and maintain 4;000 ft until glide slope intercept; cleared for the approach. I heard maintain 4;000 feet until established; cleared for the approach. After established on localizer I reset the altitude and started down to 3;000 foot  crossing altitude. The captain was talking on the radio and by the time he realized I was descending; we were already at 3;500 feet. ATC queried us and we climbed back to 4;000 feet. I'm not aware of any traffic conflicts. The controller gave a non standard clearance and I heard the standard clearance. Pay closer attention to actual clearance not what I expected to hear. ATC could use standard clearance or make a greater emphasis when it's not standard.


Synopsis: An air carrier crew and ATC controller reported that a descent was begun following localizer capture rather than after intercepting the glideslope as assigned.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: 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: Close to 10;000 feet we experienced a strange cabin odor in the aft galley. The D Flight Attendant had walked to the back and had smelled the odor throughout the cabin. Upon calling the flight deck; the pilots reported that they smelled something also. I think it dissipated within about 5-10 minutes. The pilots reported it to Maintenance once on the ground in ZZZ. I don't have any recommendations; other than possibly more regular filter changes.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported undefined odor in the passenger cabin; notified the flight deck crew who indicated smelling the odor in the cockpit as well.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain over controlled aircraft and developed high sink rate during landing flare over the numbers. Approach was stable up to that point. Landing was firm and he elected to write up the hard landing and have the ramp maintenance perform hard landing inspection. During the flight Captain communicated that he was not feeling well and intended to call in sick upon landing. After landing Captain stated he probably should have left autothrottles on. I did not feel that the sink rate on landing was extreme; but I did agree that a precautionary inspection would be wise. Captain stated that he was not feeling well during flight. Other than that; it occurred during the landing flare and I can't think of any other reasons. Besides calling in sick prior to the flight; Captain should have elected to have First Officer fly the leg in my opinion. Perhaps he took into account that I had not flown an airplane for last 40 days; but I did go through recurrent training in the last month so I was not rusty.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer as NFP reports a hard landing by the Captain who stated he was not feeling well during the flight.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The #2 FA (Flight Attendant) thought she smelled an unusual odor during boarding. I was not sure. But after takeoff the bad odor became very strong throughout the cabin. It smelled like mold; musty attic; wet dog; stinky socks and fumes. The Captain was notified. After 15 minutes the Captain called us back and said he was turning off a PAC. This caused the odor to dissipate but caused the cabin to become very warm the entire flight. My eyes got watery and burning and my mouth got very dry.




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported 'dirty socks' odor throughout the cabin which she reported to the Captain. Flight Attendant also reported experiencing physiological symptoms.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing; Descent
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Staffing
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: It started with LC1; LC2; LA1 and LA2 all combined to me do to staffing.  Traffic began to build and very quickly it became heavy traffic.  I had 4 VFR aircraft in the traffic pattern 20L and IFR arrivals and departures on 20R.  Aircraft X called inbound from the east.  When Aircraft X got close to the airport I had no way to get him into the ramp safely so I told him to hold in 360s east of the airport.  The CIC was able to get LC2 split and the CIC moved and worked my assist.  Once the positions were split I switched the pattern aircraft to LC2 but Aircraft X was still on the LC1 frequency.  I brought the helicopter over midfield and told him to approach the ramp from the west.  This was to avoid the LC2 traffic pattern which was now 4 in pattern with a few arrival/departures aircraft.  After the helicopter had crossed he made a hard left turn and crossed just of the end of runway 20L to land at a different ramp.  I questioned the pilot who said oh sorry; he was confused which one was correct; but then turned north into Aircraft Y just lifting off 20L after his touch and go.  Aircraft Y was forced to make a hard left turn only feet off the runway.  If I was the pilot I would have said it was an NMAC.  In all my years of ATC this was one of that closest I have seen two aircraft.  I likely should have double checked the pilot knew which FBO he wanted but he sounded confident.  After traffic died down I discussed this with the CIC and other controllers and they all indicated my instructions were clear and it was a good plan.  Even still; we have been working 6 day work weeks almost all year and have been feeling run-down and burned out.  I can't help but think maybe I missed a clue that the pilot wasn't going to do what I wanted.




Synopsis: An SNA Controller reports of working a combined position with a helicopter that requested landing at a specific FBO. The position gets split and the Controller keeps the aircraft that is now in another controller's area. The Controller clears aircraft to go where they requested and has what he describes as a NMAC with a departure that the other Local was working.