elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: 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 Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We have flown this route many times and the route clearance is always a series of intersections (ACITO-ADELL-ARLYN-AGNUS-.....). We have this route stored in our FMS database. Most times we are cleared direct to our destination prior to reaching ADELL Intersection. On the flight above we were not cleared direct and made the turn from ADELL to ARLYN. A few moments later Chicago Center asked us to fly a 190 heading for the climb. He then asked what fix we were navigation to. We responded ARLIN. He then informed us that our heading was not correct for ARLYN. It did not take us long to realize that ARLYN was misspelled in our stored flight plan database. We understand that there are thousands of intersections and that it is difficult to make all intersection names unique. There are several intersections with the name ARLYN spelled in different ways. The difference in heading between ARLYN and ARLIN from our position was 56 degrees. Another ARLEN was 17 degrees off our course. This error could have been avoided if a published SID existed for this airport. Having the SID in the database would prevent the misspelling of intersection names.


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


Synopsis: A Corporate aircraft's FMS had a stored route through ZAU airspace with an intersection named ARLYN instead of ARLIN which caused ATC to question the aircraft's routing.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E RSW
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was training a very experienced developmental when he took a hand off on Aircraft X. The aircraft was headed right at an area of extreme precipitation. When the aircraft checked in; my developmental issued the weather which was now less than 2 miles at his 12 o'clock position. The aircraft asked for vectors around it. I took over and turned him immediately without coordination. I immediately coordinated with the sector for control. It was approved. I asked the aircraft if he was made aware of the weather by ZMA. The aircraft responded that he was not. This was an extremely unsafe situation. During this 1 hour on position there were 3 very unsafe situations that occurred. The FAA/NATCA are making weather a priority. I think facilities need to increase OSA's (Operational Skills Assessment) to ensure that the facility is responding correctly to the new training.




Synopsis: RSW TRACON Controller reported an aircraft that needed vectors away from extreme precipitation and did not point out the aircraft until after the fact.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landing on Runway 16 Left. Weather was clear and good visibility. Flying the RNAV (GPS) 16L as backup. On final while coupled the aircraft descended a half dot below glide path and we received a GPWS warning. I didn't notice the below glide path as I was looking outside. My First Officer called the deviation just when the GPWS warning went off. I disconnected the autopilot and pulled the nose up and the warning went away. I was about to initiate the escape maneuver and the warning went away. Uneventful landing.I did not react as quickly as I would have liked to because it is easy to be lulled into not reacting properly to a GPWS at night with the field in sight. The simulator training we have been through due to events in ZZZ2 helps greatly. There are significant distractions in all our lives now that make it difficult to focus on our jobs. I need to rededicate my self to compartmentalizing and focusing while flying.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported loss of situational awareness; resulting in a GPWS warning and requiring evasive action to continue approach.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Control
Component problem: Improperly Operated
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While pushing back off remote parking in ZZZ with a significant tail wind during start noticed that the right engine EGT and Fuel Flow indicators were blank. The start was aborted and we also noted that the left engine N1 indicator was stuck at 51% N1. Because of the tail wind and the rotation of the N1 fan I accepted in my mind the N1 indication as we sat at the gate. We did not try to start the left engine.We returned to the gate and wrote up the erroneous engine indications. Maintenance personnel entered the Aircraft and found during their work preceding the flight they inadvertently left the EEC Maintenance guarded switches open thus giving us the indication errors. Maintenance set about to clear the respective maintenance entries.The EEC Maintenance switches are not part of the flight crews checks per [company manual] and the location of the switches is nonstandard on many aircraft so even if we were to investigate perspective trouble shooting issues it would not be overtly obvious to the flight crew.The flight was programmed per the flight plan for XA:56. We initially blocked out at XA:41z; fifteen (15) minutes prior as allowed per the FOM. The [company] time would have been XB:11z. After all the maintenance irregularities were safely and properly completed we were still able to block out at XB:17z which was 06 minutes after the [company] prescribed time.We are starting to see many maintenance irregularities as is evidenced by many reports that although the flight crews are doing our best to catch; like a goalie trying to catch hockey pucks; we can only catch so many on any given day.The safety of a flight needs to have many moving parts work with diligence and attention to detail. The company is entering the fourth quarter in a very stressed state financially and pressure appears to be heightened to try to bring cost into a more palatable realm. Please address the maintenance issues best as you're allowed to curb the potential for massive failure.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported EEC red guarded switches were left open after maintenance; causing a return to gate.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: After a personal training flight to practice landings at a nearby airstrip where a straight headwind was from 180 degrees; I returned to finish my flight at ZZZ. I was about 1 hour into the flight. Winds at 8 kts. gusting to 17 were being reported at ZZZ; so I made a plan to use Runway XX; a turf strip with favorable winds. As I neared ZZZ at about 10 miles out I noticed traffic was using Runway XY at ZZZ. I listened again to weather and the winds had calmed and no gusts were being reported. I decided to change my plan and set up to land on Runway XX.My approach was normal and everything was smooth until the last instant; just after touchdown; my plane lurched to my left. I pushed in throttle to get airborne. I had 40 degrees of flaps in at this time. The plane lifted free of the ground and stayed there; climbing only a slow rate and now at a 30 degree angle corresponding to direction the plane was facing as it left the runway.I now found myself heading toward the airport hangers and climbing slowly with little airspeed. I knew I was now straight into the wind and at this slow an airspeed a turn seemed not a good choice. I cleared the hangars and slowly let out some flap angle to gain some speed. I climbed slowly; reducing flaps a bit and keeping the nose and climb angle slight.After the plane was cleaned and climbing I flew straight at 2;000 ft. to calm down. This had all happened very fast and I took a few minutes to go through a cruise checklist. I now resolved to indeed land on Runway XX and set up a pattern for that strip. This landing went very smoothly and I taxied in and tied down the plane.As I thought about this it is my thought that I may very well have hit the left brake upon touchdown.




Synopsis: Single Pilot reported a temporary loss of directional control on landing and immediately executing a go around. On subsequent landing Pilot selected a runway more suitable for wind conditions and landed safely.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On my ATP checkride; after completion of steep turns; stalls; and a simulated in flight engine failure; completion of box memory items and QRH checklist; check airmen deemed the maneuver satisfactory and restored engine power. Upon restoration of engine power the engine began to run rough intermittently. Upon realization it was not an action of the check-airmen or myself we agreed to pause the check-ride to work together to determine the issue. We tried various power settings and adjusted the mixtures in attempt to resolve the engine roughness and could not identify which engine was running rough as all indications were normal. As PIC during the check ride I determined the best course of action was to return to ZZZ to a full stop and discontinue the checkride.




Synopsis: C402C pilot reported a simulated engine failure during an FAA check ride. After the demonstration; engine power was not able to be restored.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT; Tower SFO
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The traffic was moderate with very high complexity due to the wind PIREPs and what the pilots could expect - 25 knot tailwind at 2000 ft; decreasing to 15 knots at 1500; at 900 ft. decreasing below 10 knots; followed by a calm wind at 200 ft. I had a previous foreign airline go-around when I did not explain the wind to them. I gave it to every arrival after that. There was a pair on final; Aircraft X for Runway 28L; and Aircraft Y for Runway 28R. The spacing was great between the preceding pair and this one; so I departed two aircraft off of Runways 1 in front of Aircraft X and Aircraft Y. Meanwhile; I tried many times to get a hold of Aircraft X and Local Assist was calling to the arrival sector to get them as well. The arrival sector kept saying that 'They should be with you'. I kept trying by keying up and clearing them to land over and over. When they got to the threshold; the runway was clear and was prepared to watch them either land or go around. The light gun no longer hangs from the ceiling and could not be quickly accessed to utilize. Then Aircraft Y keyed up and said they have to go around; too high too fast I assumed (900 ft. and 210 ground speed at about 1 1/2 mile final). I gave Aircraft Y a right turn heading 310 and 3000 ft. While Aircraft Y read it back; I watched Aircraft X go around. As soon as they were both clear of Runway 1; I departed two more aircraft. Aircraft Y was shipped to departure with the traffic advisories for the last Runway 1 Left departure and Aircraft X going around straight out Runway 28L. Then about two miles upwind; Aircraft X checked in on the missed approach. I confirmed 280 heading and 3000 ft; then shipped them to departure. There was no issue with Aircraft X as far as I was concerned; they were protected for the go around/published missed at all times. I am not sure why we were not in communication with Aircraft X.




Synopsis: SFO Tower Controller reported simultaneous go-arounds; one associated with a loss of communication.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C CLE
ATC / advisory: Tower CLE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Today the CLE primary radar went OTS with the backup QDB radar site being OTS for numerous weeks (making CLE on ATC Alert) resulting in CLE going ATC zero. After what has to be considerable unnecessary delays to getting the aircraft that were taxied out airborne I was told to depart successive aircraft off RY 6L on runway heading and climb to 5000 feet and to depart them 2 minutes apart. There is no non-radar rule that covers this procedure. There was no call from ZOB indicating either longitudinal or lateral separation had been accomplished between departures.




Synopsis: CLE Controller reports of departing aircraft without radar services being provided 2 minutes apart. Controller was not aware of any rule in the 7100.65 that made this legal.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were flying along at 7;000 feet; roughly about 15 miles SW of LGA; and what we thought may have been a drone was spotted flying the opposite direction (220 heading) around 500 feet below us. We had no indication of a TCAS warning; and queried ATC if they had anything on the radar and promptly said 'No.' The object was black and small in size. Couldn't really make out much more than that because it happened so fast. Called New York TRACON on the ground and told them what I had seen.




Synopsis: An air carrier crew flying the LGA KORRY 3 arrival at 7;000 feet believe they saw an opposite direction UAV 500 feet below them about fifteen miles from the airport.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower 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
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I taxied out to Runway XXR. As I was taxiing; Ground called me and asked me to squawk the correct transponder code. I was annoyed with myself for not having put it in already - the transponder code that was in the box from the previous flight was close enough to the current one that I had failed to catch it in my preflight checks.I was then cleared to take off on XXR. As I was climbing out; the Tower asked me to say altitude. I was climbing up to 1;000 MSL; which was also my final altitude for my VFR flight. I replied that I was passing through 1;000; then corrected myself and said that I was climbing to 1;000 which is what I would maintain. Neither response was correct - Tower had asked me for my then current altitude. Tower didn't query me further and I climbed up to 1;000 and soon left Class B airspace.I had just returned from a 2 1/2 month COVID related leave of absence. I had completed a refresher flight with a company instructor; but this was my first day of operational flying after my return. The incidents with the transponder code and the altitude communication showed me that I was still a bit rusty and not quite up to the standards that I demand of myself as a professional pilot. I have resolved to take it slow and double check my preflights as well as my communications until I feel completely comfortable again.




Synopsis: Pilot reported being rusty after lack of flying due to the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in communication issues with ATC.
Date: 201205
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On ready reserve received four hour call out at 5:30 pm from crew Scheduler who told me I had a ZZZ and a ZZZ1 layover.  I assumed it was a three day.  Only to find when I pulled it up it was a two day with a continuous duty over night on the first night.  I called to inquire how this was legal after being available all day; getting into ZZZ after midnight with a 5 hour layover?  We of course were provided a hotel room; but by the time we deplaned; waited for in our rooms to basically try to lay down for a quick nap in our uniforms.  We were all so fatigued starting out that late at night knowing that we would not be able to sleep until we got to ZZZ the next day landing 10 hours later.  In the event of an emergency it is completely unsafe to function with no rest.  It is unrealistic to expect a reserve to perform such an trip safely with 4 hours notice.




Synopsis: Reserve Flight Attendant reports receiving a four hour call out at 5:30 pm after being on standby all day.  It is soon discovered that the first duty period is a continuous duty over night with minimal time in the hotel and an early morning departure.