elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Single Pilot
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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: I was training a developmental on E/M combined. During the position relief briefing I did not hear anything about personnel and equipment working on all surfaces of the field [at this] airport. We took the hand off on a BE35 20 northwest of the airport. We did not advise him of personnel and equipment working on the field. He was descended from 5 thousand to 4 thousand on contact then shortly after descended to 3 thousand feet. Six miles to the northwest of the airport he advised he had the airport in sight and was cleared for the Visual Approach into the airport. We then advised the pilot to report cancelling IFR with us in the air or on the ground then gave him a frequency change. He cancelled IFR 5 miles northwest of the airport and proceeded inbound to the airport VFR. I never heard him transmit on the CTAF that he was inbound. I recommend that we have better ways of posting this information in our IDS4 system. The information was located in a NOTAM area that very few people know how to access. Important information like this needs to be posted on the very front page where the weather for each airport is located and any pertinent information. This problem needs to be addressed to prevent any further problems.


Second narrative: IFR flight plan and on final approach; cleared by Approach for the visual on Runway 25R. Made two calls on the local advisory; on base and on final for landing on Runway 25R just prior to the Tower opening for operation. Landed the aircraft on 'the numbers 25R'; exited mid-field taxiway to the FBO. No issue. Later advised that equipment was working near or on the runway (I noticed two snow removal vehicles at the far west end as I was exiting onto the taxiway) and that a NOTAM had been posted but that the Runway 25 was not closed to traffic.


Synopsis: TRACON Controller voiced concern regarding the posting of needed information on the facility IDS-4 equipment; noting a recent event when information regarding equipment working near runways was not issued to landing traffic.
Date: 201606
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During a FCF (Functional Check Flight) evaluation flight; while accomplishing the 'cabin altitude warning horn' FCF checklist; the pressurization controller appears to have malfunctioned in all modes (auto; alt and manual). The true aircraft diagnosis is still to be determined; as maintenance is working the problem. An expedited descent was accomplished; unfortunately the pax oxygen masks deployed during the descent.


Second narrative: During FCF (Functional Check Flight) evaluation; cabin altitude warning check; the cabin outflow valve became unresponsive (in auto; alt; and manual); causing the cabin rate of climb to increase above the limitation. An expedited descent was accomplished; but the passenger oxygen masks still deployed.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew; while performing a post maintenance functional check flight; discovered the cabin pressure controller failed in all modes while testing the cabin altitude warning horn. A rapid descent was initiated and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ELP
ATC / advisory: Tower ELP
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is actually 2 different incidents that happened within less than 15 minutes of each other. 1.) Local control (LC) requested to right turn off Runway 26L. I told the Controller heading his choice released. Several minutes later; the second aircraft departs Aircraft X on a right turn direct CADEK (a fix on the TDOWN3 SID). The heading turned Aircraft X right into a VFR target; indicating 095 that was overflying the airport and was not on frequency. After reviewing the tapes; the LC Controller gave Aircraft X a traffic called and said contact departure. As soon as Aircraft X checked on; I immediately turned him to a 360 heading to avoid that traffic that was not on frequency. If Aircraft X had gotten lost in frequency land or took too long to check in; Aircraft X would have climbed right into the unidentified VFR target.2.) Aircraft Y checked on with me in departure. On his flight strip; the LC Controller had written 'Turn left 120.' I said radar contact and nothing else. I needed Aircraft Y to climb on the 120 heading for traffic. Aircraft Y comes back and asks if I want him on a heading; that he was never assigned one. I turn him left 120. After reviewing the tapes; the LC Controller never issued Aircraft Y a heading. The aircraft was only cleared for takeoff. Aircraft Y was on runway heading; flying directly at a mountain. Aircraft Y was climbing out of approximately 052 in a 080 MVA when I turned the aircraft.




Synopsis: ELP TRACON Controller reported two incidents where the Tower Controller issued unsafe headings.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On flight from LAS; it felt like our takeoff V-speed was set low. Performance computer was MEL'd; so we were using ACARS to calculate our takeoff performance. The ATIS was calling for LLWS so we used max power; flaps 5 and a higher rotation speed. The Passenger load was light with a fuel load for a three and a half-hour flight. When we did the Before Push Checklist it was cumbersome to check the takeoff performance using the ACARS method. We tried to keep one FMC on the ACARS page and the other on the Takeoff Performance page. There are a lot of page changes on both FMC to complete the Before Push Checklist. I remember checking the weight and balance sheet against the Takeoff Performance page; but cannot remember checking the weight on the ACARS page. (It is easy to check the performance numbers on the performance computer because you are holding the computer and the numbers are in the correct order.) On takeoff; acceleration was good because of the max power takeoff. I felt the V1; VR; and V2 were low; but climb performance was good; again because of the max power takeoff.What would help in preventing this for occurring again is put the ACARS Takeoff Performance page in the same order as the Before Push Checklist and on a single page. That way you don't have page back and forth to find information to complete the checklist.


Second narrative: Unfortunately the output from the PERF module is not organized in any manner we are used to; and each item we use in the checklist is scattered throughout the pages of output. The information output by the PERF function should at least in some single page have the information we use in the order we use it so we can easily review and verify with the checklist. It can be an additional page to the several already in existence. Of course; each of us can; and should; independently go through each page and verify every item individually. It is difficult to do so but can be done.


Synopsis: Due to an inoperative performance computer; crew relied on ACARS takeoff performance data. Crew believed that the ACARS performance data generated incorrect V-speeds for takeoff. The crew was using max power because of LLWS at the airport. As a result; the takeoff was uneventful.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMTC.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower MMTC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On initial approach into MMTC; descending; inbound we began to receive numerous laser strike attempts from a high-powered green laser. While a number of them very briefly struck the front windows of the aircraft; none resulted in any loss of pilot capacities for either crew. As they continued; I decided to breach sterile cockpit protocol and video-record the events; since this has happened at this airport before; and as far as I can tell; from the same location; about 5 miles NW of the airport. My hope is that any analysis of the video may help track down this culprit; and that was my justification for not following sterile cockpit in that moment. We did also report the strikes and their approximate location to the Tower; and they advised they would pass on the reports to the airport Commandant. This was the second night in a row we received laser strike attempts while on approach into a Mexican city. The previous night was Aguascalientes.The irony is that; below 10;000 feet; we all turn on our lights to be better seen. Should we now start to consider turning off at least the recog/landing lights that mark our location so brightly if we find ourselves being attacked?




Synopsis: EMB-140 Captain reported being targeted by a laser on approach to MMTC.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting training on Sector 1; providing services into and out of [the area]. The two sectors in the area were combined; and control of the arrivals and departures into ZZZ airport were also our responsibility. Traffic was light. Aircraft X checked in and the trainee advised them to expect a visual approach to Runway 30 at ZZZ; and issued them direct the airport. Later; I intended on discussing with the trainee that a turbojet aircraft is likely not wanting to go direct airport to set up for landing. The aircraft reported the airport in sight after being issued the location by the trainee; and subsequently issued the visual approach. About 12 miles south of the airport; the trainee switched Aircraft X to ZZZ tower. I observed the aircraft make a turn to the east; which appeared to bring them towards a 5-6 mile final for Runway 30. At this point I queried the trainee as what they thought Aircraft X was doing. They weren't sure. Then the aircraft appeared to turn more; which made it look like it no longer was lining up for Runway 30 at ZZZ. The altitude also continued to drop. At this point I initiated a call to ZZZ tower; as the LA [Low Altitude Alert] began to go off. I asked ZZZ to find out what Aircraft X was doing. ZZZ said they weren't sure; and got off the line to radio the pilot. As it turned out; Aircraft X was lined up from Runway 26 at ZZZ1. It appeared they were on a roughly 1 mile final and well below 500 feet AGL; when they finally pulled up. The pilot was uncertain where they were; and ZZZ had to put them back on approach frequency to get vectored to the instrument approach. It seems that controllers don't regularly call towers when LA's go off. Especially in visual conditions. In this case; weather was not a factor. But a wrong surface landing was narrowly prevented.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported observing an aircraft do unusual turns and descend; checked with appropriate tower and found out aircraft was descending and lining up for a wrong airport.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Control
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending via the RNAV arrival; the autopilot disconnected; and we received several ECAM nonnormal messages; including ELAC 1 Pitch Fault and ELAC 2 Pitch Fault. While performing the nonnormal methodology; another ECAM; FCTL Stabilizer Jam appeared. Also; the aircraft reverted to Alternate Law; which reverted to Direct Law when the gear was extended. [We] declared emergency with ATC. Contacted Dispatch and Maintenance Control via phone patch. Landed uneventfully on the longer runway; and when clear of the runway; terminated the emergency; and taxied to the gate without incident. There were flight control issues which generated the electronic checklist.

Callback: Reporter states that the QRH directs testing the manual pitch trim wheel and it was found to be operational but attempts to reset ELAC 1 and 2 were unsuccessful. The flying qualities of the aircraft in Direct Law were much improved from what was expected from simulator training. This aircraft had been written up previously for a similar incident. Maintenance was reportedly focusing their attention on sensors and the stabilizer jackscrew.



Synopsis: A321 Captain experiences autopilot disconnect followed by ECAM messages for ELAC 1 and 2 Pitch Faults. While preforming ECAM actions another ECAM message appears for FCTL Stabilizer Jam appeared. An emergency is declared and flight continues to a flaps 3 landing on the longer runway.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On downwind for 31L we were given a descent to 2;500 MSL and a heading of 090 (left base). ATC then told us to call the field. I asked the Captain to ask for 2;200 which was the FAF altitude because there was a layer between us and the field. He asked for direct to the FAF and ATC cleared us a 330 heading and told us to maintain obstacle clearance and cleared us for the approach. As I turned to the heading assigned and descended we received a 'CAUTION OBSTACLE' warning. Just before receiving the warning we were able to pick up the field visually. I added power and started a slow climb and turned to the right to stay away from the building. We then continued the approach and made an uneventful landing. We didn't execute the go-around like we should have since we saw the building; only later realizing that that is only the case in day VMC.The clearance was confusing and the heading took us directly into a path towards the building in downtown. I should have squared the base or just asked for the ILS approach.


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


Synopsis: In an attempt to expedite their arrival the flight crew of a B737-700 asked ATC for direct to the FAF and a descent to the FAF crossing altitude.  When ATC assigned a heading to intercept and cleared them to descend as requested; advising they were responsible for terrain and obstacle clearance; their track took them toward a downtown building and a subsequent single EGPWS Obstacle warning was generated.
Date: 202105
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The lead Flight Attendant was so uptight with a passenger not complying with the Mask policies; [Flight Attendant] thought it was prudent to chime the cockpit during landing rollout and advise the flight crew to notify a Supervisor to meet the aircraft.  This was a direct violation of sterile cockpit procedures. Because flight crews repeatedly experience chimes from the cabin while in simulator training; they are most associated with fire or critical aircraft issues.  This is never a good time to chime the cockpit unless it is an emergency. Especially for a mask compliance issue.Relaxed emphasis from Leadership on the tattling on passengers for improper use of masks (never saw this type of behavior from FA when it came to early seat-belt releases.  Reissued sterile cockpit etiquette with a bulletin on scenario that are and are not acceptable for chiming the cockpit during landing rollout.




Synopsis: Captain reported a Flight Attendant distracted the flight deck crew during the landing rollout to inform them a passenger was not conforming to face mask policy.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBAZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center SBAZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We had a] near Midair near AIRES Intersection. My flight had a near miss with another Airliner; potentially killing over 300 people. I requested from Bogotá Control for Flight Level 370 (FL370). We were at FL350 approaching AIRES Intersection. Bogotá said 'contact Amazonica Control for that request.' I switched to Amazonica Control; made my position report; including a request for FL370. We were cleared to FL370. Pilot not flying set FL370 in the Flight Management Computer (FMC); confirmed by the pilot flying. I selected Flight Level Change; the aircraft began climbing. At about 35;800 FT; we received 'traffic' 'traffic' and simultaneously; Amazonica stated 'maintain FL350.' Visually and TCAS confirmed; the other aircraft pasted off to the left; at the same altitude. My own integrity demands I put the welfare of my crew; my customers; and my Airlines above my own welfare. Therefore; I am disclosing that I routinely offset; my aircraft; one mile to the right when I am south of Kingston Airspace. That offset is why I am here today able to file this report. I am requesting with the strongest possible urgency; an investigation and possibly changes to our Standard Operating Procedures to prevent the next midair in South America. Brazil is not going to correct there problem in the near future. There have been midair collisions in Brazilian airspace under there control. I highly recommend a review of current offset procedures and give Captains more latitude on when and how to offset in radar environments and on published airways. Give Captains latitude to offset anytime when in there opinion it is a safer course of action.




Synopsis: A U.S. Air Carrier pilot flew a one mile offset on South American airways near AIRES Intersection and avoided a midair collision with another air carrier after Amazonica Control cleared his aircraft to climb into the oncoming aircraft's path.