elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When the aircraft checked in I descended them to 8000 feet. At the appropriate time I turned them base leg and slowed to 190 knots; vectoring for the Visual Approach. I scanned my other aircraft and then looked back at Aircraft X when I heard the low altitude alert going off. He was at 7000 feet and I was surprised. I should have issued a low altitude alert and climbed him. First thing I thought to do was point out the field and clear him for a visual approach. I told the Supervisor and had Tower issue the brasher. I should have issued the low altitude alert and should have climbed the plane before issuing the Visual Approach clearance.


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


Synopsis: D01 Controller and 737 Flight Crew reported the aircraft descended from their assigned altitude and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At XA:00Z the Salt Lake Approach; Stockton Controller; called me on the shout line to approach request Aircraft X direct to MLF at 12;000.  I approved this move knowing that the approach controller usually keeps the departure aircraft at least semi-near to FFU and V21 to miss the higher terrain to the west.  In this case they did not; and the aircraft began approaching an area where the MIA's are 13;000. Coordinate even further to make sure that the aircraft will stay clear of the terrain.  If there are any questions always clarify.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported poor coordination leading to an aircraft flying towards a higher MIA; Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On departure out of ZZZ; we were in level flight at 10;000 feet waiting for ZZZ1 Center to continue or climb. We received an RA and the aircraft got within 200 feet. We then received a second RA and came within 1400 feet of another aircraft. We advised ATC and continued to ZZZ2.ZZZ1 Center kept getting us confused with another aircraft with a similar call sign. We notified them twice that we were not the other aircraft. The Controller was incredibly task saturated and noticeably in over their head.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported that ATC miscommunication due to similar call signs with a nearby aircraft led to a traffic advisory and two separate resolution advisories.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After calling for taxi clearance; we were cleared to taxi to Runway 28 via the Perry 1 standard route; cleared to cross Runway 22. The Captain had me look up the taxi route on the appropriate page. I looked up the routes; and I told him directions using the Perry 2 route by mistake. Ground informed us of our mistake once we were on Taxiway C. They told us to continue and contact Tower for takeoff. In seven years at company; this is the second time I have been instructed to use the Perry standard taxi route. It would be beneficial if the standard routes were used as a standard practice or not used at all. Lastly; the use of the term 'pier' instead of concourse is non-standard and confusing.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reports being cleared to taxi via the Perry 1 standard taxi route at BWI but gets confused and reads the Perry 2.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CRP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Airspace: Class C NGP; Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: TRACON CRP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We are a STARS facility that runs the bulk of our approaches to NGP; a NAVY base. They have our radar feed. They have STARS equipment; but not our STARS feed. Because of this; we are forced to make manual inbound and handoff calls for every approach. This takes the radar controller's focus and attention away from the radar scope and forces him or her to make a landline communication that would be completely unnecessary if our STARS equipment talked to the navy STARS. This is a huge safety risk. Our facility is constantly training new controllers and new pilots; which is the NAVY's mission; to train new pilots. Hear back/Read back is a huge issue here with the brand new; green pilots and it is only exponentially compounded with the added landline communications.I have been told over and over that this is just a money issue. That is an unacceptable answer for the amount of safety that is at risk. We are talking chump change to get these two systems to talk to each other. This needs to happen ASAP. It has been a problem for years and controllers have just had to learn to deal with it. Get the FAA STARS to talk to the NAVY STARS and then we can develop procedures and scratchpad entries to ensure a safe operation.




Synopsis: CRP Controller reports of having to hand off every inbound and approach going into an adjacent facility manually. Both facilities have STARS but they do not communicate.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A 5 knot tailwind takeoff on a slightly damp grass 1800 foot strip. Obstruction clearance is a factor and a slight tailwind is normally not a problem here. But this time; waiting for the airspeed to come alive and it never did. The ground speed seemed normal; but with 2/3 of the runway gone; I decided to abort. Not a common thing to do and being generally rusty; I managed to lock the brakes. Not hard since it was probably actually at takeoff speed. Not sure after that; but it got badly crossed up and slid sideways off the right side of the runway; into soybeans. Locked brakes are usually not a problem on grass; but they were this time. Damage to the main gear; but little else as soybeans are relatively soft. So far this is just a perhaps understandable lack of skill with a difficult maneuver. But it gets worse. With the tailwind component increasing; I was slightly rushed in departure preparations; so the preflight was abbreviated; something I (almost) never do. This time was the time that a wasp had plugged the pitot. The decision to abort the takeoff was reasonable. It should have been performed without damage and skill was lacking; But simple carelessness led to the end result.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports a lack of airspeed indication during takeoff on a short grass field. The takeoff is rejected with 600 feet remaining and the brakes are locked up; resulting in a runway excursion. A wasp in the pitot tube; was not detected during a rushed preflight which precipitated the chain of events.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
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: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Cruising at FL350; the Cabin Altitude Warning Horn sounded and the red; Cabin Pressurization light illuminated.  We donned our oxygen masks and established communication.  Got into the QRH checklist and began an emergency descent to 10;000 feet.  All other systems were operating normally (i.e. bleeds and packs); and no Auto-Fail of the analog pressurization panel.  Diverted to a nearby airport based on fuel status; location; and weather.


Second narrative: During cruise flight; we experienced a Cabin Altitude Warning Horn and associated light. We donned the oxygen masks; established crew communications; and performed an emergency descent commensurate with ATC instructions while in IFR conditions. Upon reaching 10;000 FT; we both noticed that we were experiencing symptoms of hypoxia and later determined that we may have had a slow pressurization leak.


Synopsis: A B737-300 CABIN ALTITUDE Warning Horn sounded and red CABIN PRESS light illuminated; so the crew declared an emergency; completed the QRH and diverted to a nearby airport. Hypoxia symptoms were noted.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BTV.Airport, VT
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Turbulence
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BTV
ATC / advisory: TRACON BTV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We setup for the ILS 33 tuning was auto and preview available was called out. Terrain was selected ON. Pilot Flying had not selected preview and realized how high we were for the ILS as we were given vectors to intercept. A cumulating factor was a short pickup of icing condition that triggered a higher power setting and adversely affecting descent rate. We ended up too high for a proper intercept of the ILS at or prior to the FAF. As a result I called a missed approach and go around. We were instructed by ATC to climb to 6000 feet and given a heading. At that point I entered a relatively high workload. At some point we believe we were assigned 5000 feet. We nor ATC realized anything was wrong until we were assigned to 5500 feet as it seemed unusual I questioned ATC. That is when it became clear that something was off. We swiftly climbed to 5500 feet meanwhile ATC issued a low altitude alert. The remainder of the approach was uneventful.After some research on what actually happened with this incident I have found that we were indeed given 5000 feet. Given the low altitude alert we wanted to make sure to have this on file.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported while they were vectored for another approach after a missed approach at BTV they were issued a low altitude alert by ATC.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Tower, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After cleared for visual to Runway 28R at 2;500 feet; we began visual turn to final; and descended. We received a GPWS alert and although it seemed unlikely; the Captain correctly climbed per SOP. The alert stopped and we resumed the visual approach uneventfully. We reviewed the terrain after landing and saw no threats that should have set off the alert.  It is worth noting that [another] arrival behind us experienced the same alert; which we heard them report on the tower frequency.




Synopsis: An A320 First Officer reported an apparent anomaly in the GPWS system when they got an invalid terrain alert on visual approach to PDX.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Began second leg of flight back to ZZZ. Followed checklist for departure and did a quick runup as it was a quick turn. Engine seemed to be stable while checks were completed and engine was warmed up from prior flight. Departed with no issues or messages on display. Passing 7;000 ft.; notice CHT temps were rising but were stable until reaching 11;000 ft. When reaching 11;000 ft. CHT temps on cylinder 1;4;& 6 rose to 485F which max temp is 500F and message was displayed. EGT temp for cylinder 1 & 6 went offline and the chugging of the engine began; performance went from 92% to 64%. I tried throttling back and pulling mixture back a little to cool the engine and to stabilize but also noted the mountains just ahead also. Advised ATC. Notice a large [airport] on left side and began a sharp turn toward [the runway] while also descending. Engine still chugged on the way down but began to come back to life while forcing air into the inlets to cool engine down. Power returned 2 miles from threshold of [the runway]. I did panic for a second when the incident happen but regained myself and flew the plane with quick thinking by avoiding in trying to glide across mountains. CAPS was unneeded for use as altitude was enough and airspeed was enough to land at [the nearby airport]. Aircraft was found to have loose mechanical parts in engine compartment; fuel lines not secured with new O rings; r mag failed; and quarter sized hole behind the left turbo manifold area that sent out 1300F possible flame that melted some wires and also heat exchanger. Aircraft is grounded and is being repaired.




Synopsis: SR-22 pilot reported diverting to a nearby airport when he experienced a power loss and high cylinder head temperatures.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft with new FMC software installed. While cruising at FL390 and about .79 Mach setting up for the Arrival doing our Descent Briefing; ATC cleared us to descend to FL330 then cross about 20 west of ZZZZZ intersection at FL240. FO selected FL240 on the MCP ALT window then built the fix 20 west of ZZZZZ intersection at FL240 in the FMC; I verified it; and he executed it.We had plenty of room for a cruise descent so he then hit ALT INT to initiate the cruise descent requested by ATC. We resumed our brief. Instead of descending at the current cruise Mach; the aircraft initiated a deceleration to about .63 Mach just above our low speed warning window. We paused the brief; recognizing that this was not a desired descent profile and switched to 1000 ft from vertical speed descent with the current .78 Mach in the speed window and investigated.The FMC cruise altitude was now at FL240. We modified the FMC cruise altitude to the desired FL330 intermediate level off then reengaged VNAV. The aircraft continued descent as expected at the slightly lower Mach speed for FL330. I have never seen an aircraft reset the desired cruise altitude due to hitting the ALT INT for descent. If this is an error with the new FMC software this could easily lead to an unexpected high altitude low speed condition.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that new FMC software may have been responsible for the aircraft slowing excessively when ALT INT was selected to initiate a cruise descent.
Date: 201704
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Extended mechanical and operation delay. Prior to departure iPad charge [state] was at 24% and 22% for the flying crew. Both left the hotel at 100%. Without the ability to both charge we had to do an iPad relay to recharge the iPad and used the relief pilot's iPad as reserve. I believe the new requirement to have the QRH immediately available in the iPad is misguided and kills the battery faster.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported both his and his First Officer's iPads suffered from low battery that he felt was due to new company procedures.