elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UUWV.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the UMBEG arrival we requested QNH altimeter settings in HPA. The controller gave us 1004 HPA. As we proceeded we were handed off to another controller that gave us another altimeter setting of 2981 HPA. I responded to the non-flying pilot that cannot be correct. He then questioned the controller of the 2981 HPA and the controller said once again 2981 HPA. Because of his broken English; I went back to the last know altimeter setting of 1004 HPA. As we approached ODABI intersection at 600m the controller said to climb to 600m; we responded 'we are at 600m. The weather was VFR and proceeded to intercept the final approach course and landed.After we landed; we reviewed what has taken place and concluded the following:1. Below the transition altitude for this arrival we requested QNH in HPA.2. The 1st controller gave of QNH in HPA.3. The 2nd controller changed it to QFE.4. The difference between the two altitude settings cause our discrepancy of about 500'.5. We dialed in 981 HPA on our altimeter at in showed 0 feet. The controller was trying to tell us 981 HPA versus 2981 HPA.Conclusion; If we could have not been requested to change our altimeter setting to QFE during the approach and maintained the previous controller setting we could prevented this occurrence.




Synopsis: Captain reported receiving an incorrect altimeter setting from Approach Control and elected to remain on QNE for the visual approach. The Controller meant to say 981 HPA for QFE; but kept stating 2981 HPA.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was performing OJT (On the Job Training) instruction with my developmental (DEV) who is on his second set of radar sectors. He accepted the hand off on Aircraft X from HNN at FL360 inbound to LEX. Once the aircraft called on; my DEV descended him to FL350. My DEV then accepted a hand off on an aircraft; Aircraft Y; about 40 miles west of Aircraft X converging at FL360 landing IAD. There was a TMU message out requiring IAD arrivals at or below FL330 entering ZDC airspace. Aircraft X was level at FL350 at the time. My DEV then cleared Aircraft X to descend to FL240. Once he had observed Aircraft X leaving FL350; he issued descent clearance to Aircraft Y to FL350 in accordance of 7110.65 paragraph 5-5-5b. The two aircraft were still 25 miles apart converging when this descent clearance was issued. A minute or so later; Aircraft Y advised he was alerted to climb 300 feet by his TCAS. DEV then called the traffic to the Aircraft Y. Aircraft passed each other and Aircraft Y returned to FL350.A prescribed standard rate of descent amongst all turbojet aircraft would have prevented this occurrence. The Aircraft X; with performance characteristics very similar to Aircraft Y; descended at only 500 feet per minute whereas the Aircraft Y descended at about a 1500 feet per minute rate. This was the pilot's choice without advising ATC. Had the Aircraft X maintained a very reasonable 1000ft per minute rate; Aircraft Y would never had received an RA from TCAS and the event would not have occurred.




Synopsis: ZID instructor reports of his developmental descending aircraft using the vacated altitude rule; which led to a loss of separation.
Date: 202009
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: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were #3 for takeoff an ACARS message from Dispatch said we need to go back to the gate due to missing paperwork on dry ice that was in cargo. We returned to the gate; I signed the dry ice paperwork and departed for the second time.Have some kind of checks and balance for crew to know that there is dry ice or other special cargo such as live animal which appears on final close out.




Synopsis: Captain reported an uneventful ground gate return event to correct Hazmat documentation error.
Date: 201603
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This is to highlight an ongoing problem that continues to be a flight safety risk. RNAV arrivals into IAH. Originally on the DOOBI2 then assigned the SKNRD1; during the descent we received an off course heading then re-cleared on the arrival to 'descend via'. Shortly after we received no less than 3 or more speed changes with freq. changes as well. After missing a couple of radio calls and having to tell ATC unable to make some crossing restrictions it got to be too much. It was just nuts. This is no way to operate a safe ATC operation. Other aircraft experienced the same task overload. I wasn't the only one to have called the TRACON.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported he felt safety was degraded when I90 TRACON issued multiple changes to the SKNRD1 RNAV arrival.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While holding short between the active runways in SEA I observed my CA (Captain) using his cell phone to send text messages.  I also observed him listening to music throughout all four flights we had together.  Music was streamed to his headset from his company issued iPad using a headphone aux cable.I should have said something during the trip.




Synopsis: First Officer reported observing Captain using cell phone to text; and listen to music during four flights together.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Various
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was on the sector and conflict alert activated between an IFR aircraft; believe it was as 29;000 feet but do not remember the call sign; and a mode C intruder (data tag beacon code 1200) at 29;300 feet. I gave a traffic call to the IFR aircraft; at this point he was about 25-28 miles north and his course kept him 4-6 miles west of the target. I told the aircraft that there was a target; with a position from his location; with mode C altitude reading 29;300 feet appearing to be maneuvering on a beacon code of 1200. I also included that we believed it was an aircraft with bad mode c; but we were trying to verify that; he requested to remain updated. After about a minute I updated him again; and let him know that it appeared he was still maneuvering and would be 4-6 miles west of the IFR aircraft course; he acknowledged with no request made. Shortly thereafter he passed abeam the 1200 mode c intruder; no closer than 4.5 miles. That first aircraft did report seeing a single engine aircraft passing 1;000 feet above as the mode c intruder was indicating FL293 and 4.5 miles west of the IFR aircraft. I advised the IFR aircraft that there was an E170 that just passed over at 34;000 feet and he acknowledged with no other comments made in regard to the mode c intruder.For the next hour and a half the mode c intruder remained in the same general area maneuvering. During that time there were multiple aircraft that either elected to take a vector around; or climb above the mode c target; do not have an exact number but it would easily be 20 or more. This does not include all traffic calls for other aircraft passing in close proximity.All aircraft; outside of the first aircraft that I believe saw an E170 crossing above him; reported seeing the target on TCAS; but never saw anything outside.The mode c intruder went away and was not seen again. I recall seeing a few hits of a non mode c target being displayed in the vicinity of Airport ZZZ shortly after that; but that is all.




Synopsis: A Controller observed a Beacon Target squawking 1200 with a Mode C indicating 29;300 feet. Numerous aircraft were vectored away from this target. No aircraft reported seeing any traffic at the position of the beacon target.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TVY.Airport, UT
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G TVY
ATC / advisory: UNICOM TVY
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During our final approach to Runway 35 at TVY; Aircraft Y called simulated engine failure over the radio while they were on the downwind. I was around 500 feet lower at the time of their call with most of my final approach complete.During short final/touchdown we noticed the plane buzzed over the top of our aircraft at about 200+ (ADS-B showing the information) causing undue danger in the event that we had to abort landing for whatever reason. The jump plane pilots have been known to do such events in times past.  My instructor radioed to them about their unsafe bafoonery with zero recognition. It was a brief statement about a student pilot (myself) in training. He was quite unhappy with their antics and opted to not escalate it via CTAF bantering.




Synopsis: GA student pilot reported an NMAC during short final to TVY airport.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Taxied to end of runway. ATC posted a 1 1/2 hour delay; so we shut down both engines. APU auto shut down. Tried one restart. Ran for maybe 10 seconds then auto shut down again with no faults on ECAM or on over head. Started to communicate with ATC; Dispatch; Operations; Maintenance crew; and passengers. About 8 minutes later the aircraft went dark and radios were unavailable. Called Chief Pilot's office for additional guidance. Used FOM for guidance to keep passengers informed. Towed back to gate. APU [deferred]; and continued to destination.




Synopsis: A319 Captain is informed of an ATC delay during taxi out and elects to shut down both engines with the APU providing power to conserve fuel. The APU shuts down and cannot be restarted requiring the aircraft be towed back to the gate.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching DIRTY on the arrival into ATL several things occurred simultaneously that increased pilot workload. In addition; two fixes with similar names caused confusion that resulted in the flight initially flying to the wrong fix. First; we were assigned a runway different than planned and given an altitude/airspeed assignment that differed from the arrival. We were high and told to keep speed up. I notified the Flight Attendant to secure the cabin for arrival. Shortly thereafter; ATC cleared us direct to BAMBU (a fix on ILS 26R). As ATC was transmitting the flight attendants were making their cabin announcement. The First Officer (pilot not flying) didn't respond to ATC (he had PA volume up). I was monitoring the PA and thought I heard ATC clear us to BAMMM; which is on the arrival. Since the First Officer didn't respond I thought he had radio problems so I replied to ATC and started toward BAMMM. I didn't detect the difference in the two fixes. Shortly thereafter; ATC asked if we were direct to BAMBU and gave us a heading to BAMBU and the descent. I asked ATC if there was a problem and they said no. The First Officer is from another carrier and flew a different type of aircraft previously and has been on the line five months. They are too difficult to distinguish during a typically busy time. Second; unless absolutely sure; ask ATC to confirm that what you heard is fact.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports confusion during a busy arrival; believing that a clearance direct BAMBU on ILS 26R is instead a clearance to BAMMM on the DIRTY 2 arrival. A track deviation is quickly corrected by ATC.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We landed in ZZZ about 30 minutes late. We taxied uneventfully to the ramp. Upon arrival at Gate XX; we noticed that a fuel truck was parked between Gate XX and XY and that it was impeding the Safety Zone on the left side. I notified the Captain that it was over the line; but he felt comfortable continuing because he said he had a Marshaller on that side. I did not stop the aircraft; nor did I urge the Captain to stop. We followed the Marshaller's instructions to the gate. On post flight walk around; I could see how drastically the winglets overlapped the parked fuel truck. It looked like the bottom three inches of the winglet was curled and some paint was missing. I believe it contacted the top of the fuel truck. The Captain notified Maintenance and wrote it up in the logbook.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an event whereby the left winglet was damaged during parking.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CBF.Airport, NE
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C OMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON R90
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: An AJET; called on the ground at CBF for IFR clearance. We do not have a remote transmitter/receiver at CBF; so radio communication is very spotty. I gave the AJET his IFR clearance with a hold for release. He couldn't be released due to IFR traffic in the area and coordination was needed with OMA Tower to depart CBF airport.  The AJET read back his clearance without the hold for release; and then went NORDO. I couldn't get any flight information from the AJET (departure runway; time of departure; expected release time) because he was NORDO. Five minutes later; and after trying repeatedly to establish radio communications with the AJET; he departed no transponder and flew right into the Charlie airspace without a release. I told the pilot he couldn't depart into Charlie airspace or off any satellite airport without a release. He said he never heard the hold for release with the clearance. We need a remote transmitter/receiver at CBF; it is a known problem. This is a known problem. This AJET situation is one of many. The AJET only missed an Air Carrier by the Grace of God.




Synopsis: R90 Controller described an unsafe event when IFR traffic departed CBF without an acknowledged release and flew into Class C airspace without a clearance; the reporter listing the need for a remote transmitter to prevent future same type occurrences.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working West Departure with arrivals and widespread weather. My Controller in Charge (CIC) and I decided the routing of the Lakeland Arrival Gate wasn't working and asked the FLM to start having ZMA route the aircraft over KNEED. From what I heard ZMA said; 'No.' We decided to do the coordination ourselves and turn the aircraft away from the weather on initial contact. This didn't work because ZMA was not switching the aircraft. Then the CIC asked the FLM again to reroute the arrivals and the FLM refused and told us to work it out ourselves. So; we decided to do the coordination and not take the hand-off until we could call ZMA and tell them we did everything and they could turn the aircraft away from the weather without having to work.While the CIC was doing this; the FLM came over to my sector and took the hand-off from my other keyboard. Again; ZMA put the aircraft in weather too late for us to turn. The CIC relieved me and after I left said he had to force an air carrier into the weather because no one would help him reroute. Finally; the aircraft were rerouted to a safe route over KNEED and stayed that way for over an hour.This is how things are down here. We are used to being treated like children but we always retained the ability to control our sectors. Now we have lost that. An email from our Facility Representative went out recently telling us to be careful and Article 65 if need be. After all these years of being here I am saddened by the culture here. This situation and many others are just plain unsafe. I have no solution because no matter how many reports we file down here nothing seems to get done.




Synopsis: F11 Controller describes situation where no one wants to help with aircraft deviating through weather in his area causing his workload to increase.