elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Phenom 100
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; 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 Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying the HHOOD2 arrival. The crossing restriction at RABBI is FL240 or below and 13.1 miles later at HHOOD it is 10;000 feet. My aircraft does not look at the entire arrival and consider all crossing restrictions. Instead; it only looks at the one directly in front of it and calculates to the lowest listed altitude. Therefore; it does not recognize that it can be lower than FL240 at RABBI.After passing RABBI; it stopped descending and I realized that there would be no way I could descend 14;000 feet in 13 miles. I should have looked ahead at each restriction to catch this kind of situation. ATC turned me off the approach as I would have missed the crossing restriction by a few thousand feet. The VNAV system in this aircraft does not work well with these new 'descend via...' clearances. I have to be more vigilant in catching these situations where I will have to manually calculate descent paths; especially because I am single pilot.




Synopsis: An Embraer Phenom pilot was flying an approach that had stepdown fixes. Pilot said that ...'The VNAV system in this aircraft does not work well with these new 'descend via...' clearances.'  because the system only looks at the upcoming fix and not fix altitudes further along the arrival.  As a result she was unable to make a crossing restriction and was then vectored off the arrival by ATC.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty); Flight Attendant In Charge
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were proceeding down the runway and the Captain (CA) applied the brakes hard instead of lifting off and we came to an abrupt stop.  I immediately yelled to remain seated as I looked out my door to see if I saw any fire/smoke.  At that time the CA came on and said Flight Attendant (FA) stations and then immediately said Remain seated; Remain seated; Remain seated.  FA-D was assessing her door.  There was no immediate danger and at that time the CA called me.  He told me the takeoff was aborted due to a wind shear alert.  He asked if everything was ok; I told him yes and he said he would make an announcement.  I called the AFT to inform the crew what happened and they informed me that they assessed the situation from their doors.  When the CA was made aware of the tires deflating; he called and said stairs were being bought to the aircraft with busses.  We deplaned all passengers with no incidents.




Synopsis: An A320 Flight Attendant reported the Captain executed a rejected takeoff because of a windshear alert. Following the rejected takeoff at least some of the main gear tires deflated.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
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 Became Reoriented; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were taxiing out at ZZZ when we received an ACARS [message] that said LP [Load Planning] could not provide final [weights] due to the misloading of hazardous goods. We had no idea we had been boarded with any hazardous goods because we had not received any ACARS [messages] stating any hazardous goods were onboard. We called Dispatch for help and about that time we were told that we had dry ice onboard and that it was not loaded properly and would need to return to the gate. We started back to the gate. We then received our final [weights]. We called OPS and they said that we now could take off because the dry ice was surrounded by 18 bags vs the minimum of 15. We then flew an uneventful leg to ZZZ1.1. If the dry ice did not meet the minimum weight to be considered hazardous; then why would we have to taxi back to get it reloaded?2. If the dry ice did meet the minimum weight; why didn't we receive any [messages] stating we had hazardous goods onboard?




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported a communication breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch regarding Dry Ice excepted quantities and loading configurations.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Fuel Tank Cap
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During deicing procedures in the deicing area; we were informed that a fuel cap had been found on the ground by our aircraft. A few minutes later it was determined that the fuel cap had been knocked to the ground by deice spray; and had previously been sitting on our wing.I asked the deice crew to pass the cap through the cockpit window; and we returned to the gate where I was able to determine that it was; in fact; the fuel cap for our aircraft. I called Maintenance; who ensured the cap was serviceable and reinstalled it. We then fueled; deiced; and departed.This was a case of gross negligence on the part of fueling personal. Not only should the fueler have informed us of the disconnected fuel cap chain; but leaving it on the wing presented a severe safety hazard. Under the right conditions the cap could have been ingested by our #2 engine.I related the incident and my concerns to the fuel supervisor; who I hope will take corrective action on this matter.




Synopsis: A fuel cap retaining chain was disconnected and the cap was found on the wing of the aircraft. When deicing; the cap was knocked off the wing. Maintenance reinstalled the cap.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting OJTI during the inbound cargo rush. Within about 10 minutes of the session beginning; the Developmental turned an aircraft on left base abeam the FAF for Runway XXL. Weather conditions dictated that we vector for ILS approach. I questioned the Developmental as to why he was basing the aircraft in such an impossible turn on position. I received a blank stare in return and then some senseless babble about he didn't think it was too tight. By this time the aircraft was already established in the turn; so I issued instructions to fly heading 170; attempting to get enough room to turn the aircraft to join the localizer.  Further discussion ensued; and the Developmental turned the aircraft to a base heading of 140. I said; 'That is not enough;' because the indicated airspeed was 280 knots. The Developmental did not take action to correct; and turned to me to say; 'I am way back on my heels here.'  I issued a turn to join and asked the pilot to make his best rate of turn to capture the localizer. The pilot responded with words to the effect that he was going through and turning at the maximum rate. The aircraft subsequently slid all the way to the XXR localizer course; approximately 4 miles behind the heavy jet on Runway XXR approach. Separation was lost by the time the pilot unkeyed; and I threw in a 'caution wake turbulence' or some such. The aircraft subsequently reported the airfield insight; and a visual approach was issued. I believe that this event happened because I allowed it to happen. I let the trainee go too far down the error chain before I tried to pull it back. I failed to correctly analyze the aircraft's airspeed and tail wind configuration and attempted to take corrective action too late.  In addition; I wasted mental effort trying to understand what was 'going on inside the trainee's head' instead of giving the traffic the attention it deserved. I was honestly flummoxed by the trainee's lack of judgment and lackadaisical attitude.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a loss of separation event during an OJT session when failing to intercede and correct the trainee's poor vectoring technique.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C83.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I left ZZZ with VFR with Flight Following to Byron C83 for air work in vicinity. While monitoring NorCal TRACON; there was minimal chatter and no mention of jump activity near Byron. After passing ZZZ1 with Byron in sight; TRACON contacted me and said squawk VFR. I switched code to 1200 and stayed on TRACON to monitor and proceeded to do air work north of Byron. After 30 minutes; I began return at 3;500 feet to ZZZ1 for pattern work. There was little traffic on TCAS in general Byron area. Nearing Byron; I also began to monitor ZZZ1 ATIS in preparation for entering pattern.Around XA:30 pm while passing east of Byron; I observed jumpers several thousand feet ahead at my 2 o'clock in chutes above my flight path. I immediately verified clear left and banked left and descended to increase separation. I lost sight of chutes in the bank. Once clear of immediate area; I re-established heading and altitude to ZZZ1.After contacting ZZZ1 Tower for landing instruction; I was informed TRACON had contacted them about my plane flying near a drop zone. I acknowledged I had seen chutes and avoided them. No further information was given. After landing in ZZZ1; I taxied to run up and then took off and returned to ZZZ. I immediately called my CFI to discuss incident and we agreed to file a report.Lack of communication of jump activity at Byron was a possible cause of incidence. In checking the ForeFlight information for Byron that day; there were no NOTAMs for Byron jump activity. In previous flights in the Byron and Tracy area; advance warnings of jump activity on TRACON was given. It is also possible the ATIS information from Livermore interfered with any TRACON information while approaching Byron; which is near ZZZ1. It is possible jump information was broadcast on CTAF which was not being monitored.There are several corrective actions I plan to take as a pilot flying near airports marked for possible jump activity. When monitoring TRACON in the area; I will request if there is any jump activity noted in the area during my time there. Also I plan to monitor CTAF when in or approaching the immediate vicinity of possible jump activity.




Synopsis: Student pilot reported that lack of NOTAMs and ATC advisory caused him to fly close to a skydiving drop zone near C83 airport resulting in a NMAC.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HWD
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Manuals; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a visual approach to OAK RWY 30 with Aircraft Y following on the visual approach. A VFR 1200 code aircraft departed HWD southeast bound and was climbing. I issued traffic to Aircraft X on the 1200 code as it appeared to climb out of 1100 feet. The 1200 code aircraft climbed to 1400 feet. Aircraft X passed over the aircraft at 2500 feet on a seven mile final. I then switched Aircraft X to OAK Tower. He eventually went around. I issued traffic to Aircraft Y on the 1200 code aircraft. When Aircraft Y did not have the aircraft in sight I instructed him to stop his descent as the aircraft passed underneath. Once Aircraft Y passed I cleared him for the visual.The 1200 code aircraft was on a path directly underneath the OAK RWY 30 final and opposite direction. The aircraft was inside HWD delta airspace the entire time. This leads me to believe that the aircraft is in communication with the tower at this point. Our LOA with HWD Tower states that OAK RWY 30 aircraft may penetrate the class delta airspace without coordination provided they are within 1.5 nm of the centerline. We have been told by controllers and FLMs at HWD Tower that they are under direct order not to issue turns to aircraft. If this is the case it contradicts the 7110.65 and has caused numerous cases like this and is causing unsafe situations that will ultimately lead to a midair collision.Management and [union reps] from both facilities need to get together and collaborate on a way to mitigate this unsafe practice.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported a VFR aircraft in HWD airspace flew under the OAK Runway 30 final approach course causing two conflicts with OAK arrivals. The final approach course goes through HWD Delta airspace.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SQL.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO; Class D SQL
ATC / advisory: Tower SQL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: When about to initiate descent to at SQL (1;200 FT); a TCAS target appeared directly below and just in front of my nose at 300 FT below. I stopped my descent until I could see the other aircraft; but while doing so might have slipped the 1;500 FT shelf of the SFO Class B that overlies SQL at 1;500 FT.




Synopsis: A light twin pilot took evasive action from another aircraft while on approach to SQL and; after stopping his descent; entered SFO Class B at 1;500 FT.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I am only filing this to highlight a flaw in the 'STARS' (Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System) collision alert feature. When aircraft appear likely to merge at conflicting altitudes; the STARS system produces a 'collision alert' for both aircraft. In this specific incident; the system's response to the two aircraft that merged happened way too late.  Watch the playback from this incident and notice that by [the] time the collision alert happened; it was already too late for any controller to do anything to prevent the two aircraft from merging any closer. The aircraft were going too fast and there was not enough distance for either to get out of the others way. The STARS collision alert feature also produces false collision alerts at times where two aircraft will not merge; so there's an obvious flaw in this feature. In this case; this apparent flaw could have yielded grave consequences. Once again; I urge whoever reads this to study whether or not the collision alert feature here at SCT is satisfactory. In my opinion; it's either too sensitive; or in this case not sensitive enough. So I guess it needs re-calibration. Please check the collision alert feature here at SCT.




Synopsis: SoCal TRACON Controller reported a problem with the STARS Collision Alert System.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We received the dirty sock smell after takeoff; which dissipated by the time we reached 10;000 feet. The odor appeared again just prior to landing during the final 1;000 feet of the approach to landing. The flight attendants and a commuting pilot in the cabin did not notice any unusual odors. After the flight; the Captain contacted Maintenance Control and they deferred PACK 1. On the next flight (part 2 of a turn in the same aircraft); we did not notice any odors. Suggestions: Having had five such dirty-sock-smell fume events; I've noticed what appears to be a correlation between these incidents and the airplane having had a recent service check and/or having a high oil level. In this case; the oil level was at 11.1 on each engine after shutdown. After shutdown on the subsequent flight (during which PACK 1 was already deferred); the oil levels were at 10.6 on engine 1 and 10.5 on engine 2. My observation is that the when the oil is over-serviced; it is more likely to contaminate the bleed air. Perhaps servicing the oil to a lower level could reduce the number of fume events at our airline. Nevertheless; the company owes the employees an update on the investigation into the cause of these hazardous incidents.




Synopsis: EMB-170 First Officer reported a 'dirty socks smell' after takeoff; and during approach to landing.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Aircraft component: Cylinder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Was performing annual inspection on a Cessna twin and discovered a cracked cylinder. Research revealed related ADs for this model of Cessna; however this plane in question is outside the serial range of the AD. I believe the serial range should be extended to include these later serial numbers as it is a serious issue and others could be affected. Reference Airworthiness Directive 2016-16-12.




Synopsis: Maintenance Inspector reported discovering a cracked engine cylinder on a Cessna 414A.