elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class B ZZZ; Class E ZZZ3
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Over two hours on position. Total of 25 'over two' this evening. I was [named position] CIC. 3 different times was I pressured to close a sector on my line for staffing. All three times I explained why I felt we needed to keep Sector X and Sector A split. Sector A Controller was fairly busy working ZZZ1 arrivals; with added complexity of the weather; there was a wind change associated with the weather in the area and the final was compressing more than what it was when the Sector A Controller sat down. In turn; he ended up having some go arounds just before I sat down on position. During the time where I was questioned about keeping Sectors X & A de-combined; Sector A had a VFR aircraft that found themselves in clouds and needed assistance getting down. This all caused 3 destination changes; '7'(as the pilot said) frequency changes and ultimately a local IFR pick up and approach to ZZZ2; after they first tried to get in with ZZZ1 and ZZZ. This caused the workload and frankly (visually) the stress level of the sector to increase significantly. He had no business taking on more airspace and aircraft during this time. The supervisor who was pressuring me to close it; told me he wouldn't normally ask but the OM was forcing him to try to get Sector A closed down. Closing the position would've caused an unsafe situation.At the end of the day its very clear the management team (top to bottom) at ZZZ do not care about the overall safety of the operation. This is going to be the summer from hell and I pray no one dies due to controller fatigue combined with a sector that should've been split but not having the bodies to truly run a safe and efficient operation.Accountability for ZZZ Management.We need 40 more controllers.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller In Charge reported pressure from management to combine positions the reporter felt was unsafe to do.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Radio Closeout indicated R/A (Regulatory Article) F-YES.No NOTOC (Notice to Crew) received prior to gate departure. CA (Captain) queried FO (First Officer) who stated there were certain cargo 'exceptions' that allow departure with R/A and no NOTOC.  FO stated he had recent experience with this situation and end result (via chief pilot conversation) was that there were some shipments of R/A that no longer required a NOTOC. Radio call made to Ops who stated the subject cargo was 'medical shipment; no NOTOC required.' With apparent confirmation of the FO's position; departed immediately to maintain schedule.Enroute further research in FM-1 Section 13 confirmed CA's belief that ANY R/A REQUIRED a NOTOC. Post-Flight CA called Cargo Hotline which confirmed Dry Ice was the R/A and a computer generated NOTOC was issued (unknown if it was ever printed). Cargo was unable to determine the R/A location in computer logs.No incidents or other issues concerning this instance.Suspect 'human error' by station personnel in not delivering a NOTOC to flight crew and claiming no NOTOC was required. I should have stuck with my 28+ years of experience and 'gut feeling' when something isn't 'just right.'  My 'gut feeling' was FM-1 'requires a NOTOC for ANY R/A' which was later confirmed.


Second narrative: I mentioned to him that there were exceptions to the rule requiring any NOTOC; one being the UN-3373. I informed the Captain that I had once taken a lengthy delay only to be told it was unnecessary for a similar situation. I called operations as we held short of the runway; and queried them regarding our situation. They informed me that it was a medical shipment that required no NOTOC; and that we were legal to depart. After further review during cruise; the Captain and I concluded that we may have in fact needed a NOTOC. This was later confirmed by Captain with a phone call to cargo. Please get these station personnel squared away if this is the case!


Synopsis: Hazmat was loaded as B737 cargo; but the Notice to the Crew (NOTOC) did not accompany it. The ground crew erroneously stated it was medical and the NOTOC was not require. The Captain determined that was incorrect.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Take Off Roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My copilot and I taxied out to Runway XXR. It was a busy day and the Tower was issuing rapid instructions and replies. I heard what I believed the Tower to say was ' Runway XXR cleared for takeoff'. I repeated the instruction and no response was heard from the Tower. I lined up on the centerline of  Runway XXR and began my takeoff roll. At approximately 50 AGL theTower 'cancelled my takeoff clearance' and I pulled out the power and landed straight ahead. It was at this time that I saw a Cessna Caravan departing Runway XYL as it crossed the departure end of  Runway XXR. We were taxied back to  Runway XXR and we departed the airport uneventfully.A contributing factor I believe is the speed at which the ZZZ Tower issues instructions and replies. I believe the controller may have been too busy issuing the next instruction to listen to whether I had heard and understood his instructions and repeated them back correctly.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a rejected take off after communication problems with ATC resulted in Ground Conflict.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
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)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cleared to Descend Via SKNRD3 Arrival into IAH. Prior to descent; both pilots checked the restrictions on the arrival with the FMGC. All in agreement. Descent started. First restriction at BEATL was between FL240-280. However the PFD showed the constraint as FL280 and leveled off rather than descending through the altitude window. This was repeated at DOOBI and SKNRD. Each time the constraint was double checked; but the airplane thought the restriction was a hard altitude. This caused doubt as to whether the airplane was going to meet the subsequent restrictions. Workload was increased and at one point; the flying pilot had to disconnect the autoflight and hand fly the descent. We even went to one of the restrictions and changed the window to a mid-altitude; for example: FL240-280 became FL260. Also during the descent we went out of DES into OPEN DES. Which now meant the bottom altitude needed to be changed to the most restrictive altitude instead of the bottom altitude of Descend Via. It seems this is happening frequently into IAH. It is odd; because the FMGC has the correct constraints; but the autoflight is flying it differently.




Synopsis: A319 Captain experiences FMGC anomalies during descent on the SKNRD3 arrival to IAH. Although the FMGC shows the correct altitude window at each waypoint; the PFD shows only the upper limit and the autopilot choses to level off there at each fix.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was teaching my student how to land; he had previously done 20 unassisted landings. My student was on the controls on very short final. We were over the runway at about 15 feet AGL when the engine went quiet. The right wing dropped and we lost all lift without hearing the stall horn. Our nose is now pointed at a 40 degree angle to the right from the runway heading. I immediately took controls; leveled the wings and flared so we would bounce on our main gears. We bounced off the runway and headed into the grass; I treated it like a soft field landing. I made sure to avoid any runway lights. ATC asked if there was any damage and if I needed assistance; I said negative. ATC said I can taxi back on the runway and exit runway. I was thankful for ATCs calm demeanor.Power had now returned to the throttle/engine. I was able to taxi back onto the runway; then back to parking.The aircraft I was flying had previously been reported to having faulty mags during a run up; but maintenance was not able find anything wrong. The aircraft is now being thoroughly inspected.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported loss of engine power resulted in a runway excursion after Student Pilot incorrectly applied control inputs; causing Instructor Pilot to assume control.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post Flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was test operating an Unmanned Aerial System (UAS); a DJI Phantom 3 Professional; within Flushing Meadows Corona Park in Queens; NY. This flight was purely for hobby/recreational purposes (non-commercial operation). It is legal to fly UAS in this park; however; since it is approximately 2 NM south of LGA; I telephoned the tower on my intentions to fly for approximately 10 minutes at or below 250 feet AGL. The tower operator thanked me for calling and asked that I call back when I was done with my operation.After landing; I noticed a voicemail from LGA ATC requesting that I call back; which I promptly did. The controller asked for my name; type of aircraft flown; and the duration of the flight. I provided the controller with my information and he thanked me. I wasn't sure if I was in violation of any FARs; as I had called in my intentions; but I am filing this notice as a matter of record of my compliance to contact ATC whenever flying within 5 miles of an airport; and staying well below 400 feet AGL; and away from people 2NM and further from LGA. On a good note; had I attempted to fly any further north; DJI has built in firmware informing the pilot (me) when within 1.5 NM of the field; causing the UAS to land automatically. This did not occur as I did remain south.




Synopsis: A rated Private pilot reported flying his UAV in Corona Park; 2 NM south of LGA; with the Tower's permission.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Other all
Operating under: Other all
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other all
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Landing
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were operating our new metroplex for configuration number 2 which involves using 2 parallel runway[s] separated by less then 2;500 ft. There are virtually no 'outs' for our Final Controller and the same applies to the arrival feeders (LAK and GNT). In my opinion; this entire Metroplex procedure is unsafe as we use the same altitudes for arrivals dangerous. Literally every configuration needs altitude tweaking as well as the routes. This needs to be observed by the Event Review Committee.




Synopsis: A Las Vegas TRACON Controller reported one of the new Metroplex procedures is unsafe.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
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: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After departing Runway XXR at ZZZ crew was eventually vectored for arrival Runway XX at ZZZ1.  Crew was in visual conditions and planned to use ILS Z Runway XX guidance as back up for visual condition arrival.  Crew advised ZZZ1 in sight west of ZZZ heading easterly.  Aircraft was at 3;300 ft. MSL and ZZZ Approach cleared Aircraft to cross ZZZ at 3;000 ft. cleared for the visual Runway XX.  Crew was at the western boundary of ZZZ but had the approach mode preselected and just over the top of ZZZ is captured the GS and we began to descend following the glide path. We descended about 150 ft. and continued for landing.  Crew landed ZZZ1 without incident.  Crew has elected to file and ASRS report due to possible difference in the understanding of cross over meaning.  If the Controller wanted us at 3;000 ft. the entire time we crossed ZZZ then this event could be taken as an altitude deviation.  If that statement only meant to start at 3;000 ft. then there is none. If flying the published ILS Z approach; it is stated to be at 3;000 ft. until glide slope intercept. 1. Task saturation with such a short flight.  While we were not rushing to complete the flight; and had measures in place to mitigate as much as possible; there are always opportunities for saturation. 2. Instructions that I perceive lend themselves to interpretation or possible confusion after thinking about the events.  3. At the time the crew nor ATC received/gave further clarification. 4.  As PM (Pilot Monitoring) I should have been more aware of the FGC selections that had been set and had stronger SA (Situational Awareness) to determine how it might affect our path. 5. Crew's technique for using FGC/Automation instead of splitting flight path and vertical guidance using FGC and AP vs combining them using the APP mode. To ensure complete and unquestioned compliance with this instruction again; crew should ensure that altitude is held till absolutely clear of airport boundary and then aviate appropriately to return aircraft flight path and vertical progress to desired slope.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: Flight crew reported altitude deviation on confusing clearance.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landing in EWR we were cleared for the Stadium Visual to 29. Behind us was a [wide-body aircraft] which was given the visual to 22L. We were told to slow to final approach speed and cleared to land on 29. There was a [large transport] cleared to land on 29 ahead of us that had slowed early and flew a little wide on the visual; which is why we were told to slow to final. As we were reaching short final my First Officer queried ATC as to our spacing with the [wide-body] on final for 22L; [to] which we received no response. It was obvious that we were slightly lower and ahead of [the wide-body] on our approach. My assumption was that we were to land first on 29 and then [the wide-body] would cross behind and land 22L. The closer we got to touchdown I realized we were going to be very close to each other. I was hesitant to initiate a missed approach due to our proximity if [the wide-body] did the same thing. I continued the approach and we landed safely. Looking over my shoulder; [the wide-body] was touching down. I cannot with certainty say exactly how close we were; but it was to say the least uncomfortable. ATC never acknowledged our question on proximity with [the wide-body] and simply told us to contact ground. I did however hear the Tower Controller say that he would have a 'tight crossing'.Anytime it is windy enough to utilize 29 in EWR things can get interesting.Suggestions - If this were to happen again I would have queried ATC earlier as to our sequence. Specifically whether or not we were first or second to the airport.


Second narrative: As we crossed the numbers on 29 I was clearly able to determine that our proximity was much closer than I expected. My estimate is that our separation of where our paths crossed was approximately 10 seconds. Much closer than I believe safe. Especially with no communication from ATC.


Synopsis: Embraer jet flight crew reported they were uncomfortable with ATC spacing on approach to EWR.
Date: 202009
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Performed an intercom check on the ground; between myself and passenger; which was satisfactory. Departed on an introductory training flight as the instructor. It was my second flight using a mask required by our flight school's new COVID-19 related policies and procedures. The route of flight was to be per my normal introductory flight. Turned south towards ZZZ after above a safe altitude. Experienced difficulty communicating with the passenger as my mask was interfering with my microphone. I repositioned my headset's microphone from the outside to the inside of the mask which resolved the communication problem. At this point I identified the road which runs tangentially to the northern edge of the lateral boundary of ZZZ's Class D airspace. After initiating my usual turn to the West to avoid the Class D airspace; I realized that I had mistakenly used the wrong road which was 1 mile south of the correct road and I was now in ZZZ's Class D airspace. I continued turn to a northerly heading in order to exit the airspace and then continued on the introductory flight's route as usual. I was momentarily distracted and failed to maintain situational awareness. As a result; I entered Class D airspace before establishing radio contact. Once the airplane began to turn; the error was apparent and immediately corrected. I should have prioritized tasks and addressed the intercom problem after ensuring correct navigation and situational awareness.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported difficulty talking to passenger while wearing a face mask and had an airspace violation while attempting to fix the communication issue.