elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: STL.Airport, MO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: TRACON T75
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Pilot Monitoring on Aircraft X from ZZZ to STL on (date). We were arriving on the AARCH 2 Arrival in STL; landing to the west. We were told to descend via the ARRCH 2 Arrival landing west by the Center Controller. We briefed the AARCH 2 and planned on a Visual Approach to Runway 29; per the ATIS. Runway 30R was closed and the primary landing runway was 29. We knew from the previous week that we might expect a change to 30L from the Final Controller. Upon initial check-in with STL Approach; nothing was changed from our original plan. When we checked in with the Final Controller; he told us to expect 30L. I immediately referenced my iPad; to change the ILS frequency; approach course; and Touchdown Zone altitude. When I looked up; I noticed the flight director roll mode was control wheel steering roll. I looked at the legs page on the FMC and there was a discontinuity at the top of the legs page 1 (which explains why we were in CWS roll). The aircraft was tracking the proper course just fine; but since we had no lateral course; VNAV was disengaged as well. We were at 10;000'; and were still going about 280 knots. Apparently the Pilot Flying had changed runways in the FMC; and executed the change with a discontinuity on the legs page. He also did not notice the change in the flight director roll mode. He made these changes without verbalizing them; or asking if I concurred with the changes. Since we were not in VNAV; by the time we slowed and descended; we were 1000' to 1500' high at the EADDS; OSHIE; and FDRKO intersections. I could not get a word in edgewise to ask for relief from the controller; nor did the controller ask us about our altitude. The controller did not notify us of a loss of separation with another aircraft; and; frankly seemed too busy to notice what happened.


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


Synopsis: Flight crew reported unable to make crossing restriction and unable to talk with ATC due to frequency congestion.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was PM on a SEA-ZZZZ flight. Shortly after takeoff I realized a 'RNP UNAVAILABLE' message in the scratch pad. We never got to fly the full Mountain 9 Departure as we got vectors shortly after checking in with Departure. Once we were on course our regular flight plan the Captain handed me the airplane and radios as he grabbed the QRH Section 9.21. The CA [Captain] pulled up the GPS status page and noticed that our GPS was not showing anything but our IRS was still there. The CA opted to switch arrivals to avoid any RNAV requirements and used our VOR data to back reference our FMS data. There was about a 0.52 mile discrepancy between both FMS's. We were given the ILS Runway XXR but we opted for XXL since it was such a short flight and task saturated leaving our hands full below 10;000 MSL and had already briefed it. We got vectored off the arrival and onto Runway XL approach in hope to intercept the ILS; only to find out that it was inoperative. We had checked the NOTAMs and ATIS and nothing was shown that it was inoperative. We had the runway in sight and weather was not an issue so we shot a straight visual approach with no available backup. The task saturation left my hands full and the 1;000 ft call was delayed.




Synopsis: First Officer reported experiencing loss of GPS signal.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel Control Unit
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft was written up yesterday for similar problem. On run up ensured that ECU (Engine Control Unit) test was good as well as running up engine to 100%. On takeoff; indications normal; slight overspeed of prop but this is normal; climb out noticed rpm did not reduce upon pulling power to 92%. Advised ATC that we needed to return to ZZZ; also at this point ZZZ had gone IFR; so we filed IFR with departure to come back. ATC vectored us across the Runway XXL localizer at 2500 ft. for sequence; at this point we could hold 88 kias and altitude without overspeeding prop to red (45% load max) in accordance with the QRH. ATC gave us a vector a little far from the field so I asked for them to keep us close in case even though the situation was stable. I (Instructor Pilot) took over flying after first vector back to ZZZ. Vectored for ILS XXL right around joining the localizer had dual ECU fail and advised Tower we would be unable to go around; [the student] ran QRH; annunciations persisted. Elected to land flaps up so we could maintain speed with as little power as possible. Landed and taxied back uneventfully. Followed up with TRACON once on the ground.This issue was written up day prior and taken care of by Maintenance but as far as I can tell was not flown. On the ground all of our indications were good. Problem did not replicate until we were in the air. Suggest maintenance flight next time when a prop governor jam is involved.




Synopsis: DA40 Flight Instructor reported malfunction of Engine Control Unit (ECU) during climbout and returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was Pilot Flying on turn to final over FAF for the runway. Aircraft overshot and I was correcting back to course; speed was set to flaps 40 target while still at flaps 15 airspeed aircraft 'Airspeed' alert sounded as I corrected back to line up on final I looked down and saw airspeed at 138 as it approached the first red dot on the Mach Air Speed Indicator; I pushed the thrust levers forward and leveled the aircraft as the stick shaker momentarily shook the column. After aircraft accelerated back on speed; I called for landing flaps 40 and flew the remainder of the approach to landing uneventfully.


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


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported allowing the aircraft to slow below target speed for flap setting while maneuvering on final approach.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 22
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SLC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Lots of construction operations were going on at the Airport. Multiple Taxiways were NOTAM'd out of service. Runways were closed. Approaches are out of service. In flight visibility is compromised due to haze; but still good. The Approach Controllers were pushing Visual Approaches so that they could run traffic closer together. We landed and were told to make the midfield turn off onto a taxiway. We did it. We were then instructed to cross the closed runway and call Ground on the wrong frequency for the runway we landed on.We called Ground no answer; second call no answer; contemplated calling the Tower about this; but Tower's high workload made me think twice about trying that. Then we heard ground reading a clearance to another aircraft. When he finished and said standby for read back; I tried to again call ground. No response. He then instructed the aircraft on another frequency to go ahead with the read back. Then he had to correct the mistakes. Then when he finished with that; and acknowledged the correct read back I called again. He admonished me about him having to work four frequencies; and to have a little patience; with attitude; did not go over well with me. I told him not my problem; just calling Ground as instructed. He gave us our taxi clearance and we taxied to the ramp with no further communication or interaction with Ground Control.The poor controller was actually overwhelmed with his workload. I don't know how he could possibly multi-task; working Ground and clearance safely at a busy place. Having to manage aircraft waiting to use the same taxiway to get in and out of the east side of the airport with only one taxiway to do so; in of itself demanding job. He then has to be inside; not looking out to track down clearances; read them and copy the replies; how could one individual be expected to supervise surface movements? His snapping at us was evidence of his frustration level.




Synopsis: A corporate pilot reported the Ground Controller was overworked and lashed out at the pilot for multiple radio calls.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While working the R-Side at Sector 38 during a busy and complex session; I placed a CRJ westbound on J209 on a vector H220 initially to avoid multiple FL270 traffic (including a Meridian; eastbound on J209); so I could climb the aircraft. While making several other moves to get the traffic flow in order; I slant zeroed an aircraft on top of the Meridian and could no longer see the data block; and missed him as I went back to re-evaluate the CRJ. As I adjusted the heading to H235 and issued the climb to the CRJ to FL280 the conflict alert went off and I had realized my mistake; however; I measured and seen that I had 5.1 miles between these two and increasing. This was a busy session; with multiple aircraft on vectors; and also a lot of readbacks due to the documented fact that TYI's Main frequency in and around TYI VORTAC has been unreadable to pilots; which causes a lot of confusion and causes more workload for controllers; which was a problem during this session as I finally had to switch to BUEC's to obtain a manageable frequency. Fix Tar River's 132.22 frequency to help reduce controller workload and missed readbacks.




Synopsis: ZDC Controller described a conflict event noting problematic radio coverage as a contributing factor.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
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: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the DRLLR5 Arrival into IAH. We were given clearance to descend via the Arrival and maintain 250 KIAS. As we approached DOMNO descending through 10;000 feet we hit some wake turbulence. Shortly after; we received a 'Lateral Mode Off' message. I reached over and armed the NAV mode. The LNAV captured and the aircraft started the turn towards ZOEEE. Monitoring the turn; I saw we were off course and turning slowly to correct. I advised the First Officer to switch to HDG; and then told him to use the TCS (Touch Control Steering) for faster correction. At this point; ATC gave us a heading and queried us. I advised them we lost lateral mode. They then continued to vector us until the approach.The threat was the loss of lateral mode at a point where the aircraft would be turning. Not selecting the best corrective action resulted in the aircraft being off course. I'm not sure there is much we can do to prevent this. However; if it should happen again; it is probably best to go straight to TCS for prompt correction.




Synopsis: Embraer regional jet Captain reported a track deviation occurred on arrival into IAH; wake turbulence was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [EMB-145] was inbound. While level at 7;000 at 230 knots on the STAR [he] asked for an immediate descent. Once descended I asked [him] for the reason for descent request; and he reported severe turbulence. This seemed odd to have severe turbulence reported on a very active STAR with no other previous reports of any turbulence from other aircraft. I disseminated the PIREP and solicited more reports from other aircraft in the area. All other aircraft reported a smooth ride. I then realized the [EMB-145] was 5 miles in trail of a [B737-8 MAX]; who was on the same STAR at the same altitude. I suspect [the EMB-145] was actually experiencing wake turbulence behind the [B737-8 MAX].I'm unsure what kind of testing is done with these newer aircraft; but for an EMB-145 to experience severe turbulence being 5 miles in trail of a [B737-8 MAX] I'm concerned about this weight classification. I recommend further testing is done on the [B737-8 MAX] aircraft in terms of their weight class and the amount of wake they produce. If it is determined that these aircraft are creating significant wake turbulence to have an EMB-145 report severe turbulence while 5 miles in trail level flight at 230 knots; then I think reclassifying them as heavy aircraft may be necessary.




Synopsis: N90 TRACON Controller reported receiving reports of wake turbulence from an EMB-145 flight crew on arrival into LGA 5 miles in trail of a B737-8 MAX. Reporter expressed concern that the B737-8 MAX may have to be classified as a heavy jet for wake turbulence separation purposes.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: FLL feeder final was combined together. Sector was working Aircraft X inbound from the west on the 10L ILS final. The Zulu controller saw a 2300 ft VFR climbing and turning out of the OPF/HWO area northwest bound through the FLL east finals; and tagged it 'Watch2' acquiring the callsign Aircraft Y via ADS-B. The aircraft continued through the ILS approaches just west of PIONN; which has a crossing altitude of 025. Aircraft X had to be kept high and unstable because of the observed traffic. Fortunately the volume was not so much to be dangerous; however had this event occurred during busier times of day; it would have been substantially more dangerous. FLL needs a bigger class C airspace or a class B!




Synopsis: Miami TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict with an air carrier inbound to FLL and a VFR aircraft.
Date: 202004
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was made aware several days ago that my flight from ZZZ-ZZZ1 on operated with vertical stabilizer probe covers on. I did the walk-around and did not notice the covers on the probes. In my years of flying this type aircraft; I have never had the probes covered. I entered a write-up after landing that the FEEL DIFF light came on several times in flight; but the aircraft operated normal. Yesterday I spoke to Maintenance in ZZZ and I asked what color are the probe covers normally. He said normally X color; however they were short on supplies and in many cases used other methods to cover the probes. Also; Maintenance mentioned this was a new procedure and did not have all the necessary standardization and procedures in place. In today's environment; we have all types of distractions going on; I don't believe I need to list them. This is a challenging time for all employee groups which can cause mistakes and errors. I'm sure Maintenance did not intentionally not remove the covers.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported being notified that he had operated a flight with the vertical stabilizer probe covers on during flight.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Second aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified

Narrative: A Global Express was issued a descent to cross GOUDA intersection at 16;000. About 20 miles from GOUDA; I terminated RADAR service and advised the aircraft to contact Juliana Approach. Because my scope was saturated with data tags; and I wanted to eliminate the potential for distractions; I dropped the flights data tag while still in my airspace. A Citationjet; a departure from Princess Juliana (SXM); was RADAR identified East of GOUDA at 14;000. With only a quick glance to see if there were any potential conflicts; I climbed the aircraft to FL400. After a few second; while scanning the area around the Citationjet; I noticed that he had traffic northwest of his position at 16;000. I immediately turned the aircraft south to avoid. Separation did not drop below 5 miles; but that was pure luck. As soon as the situation was resolved; I turned the Citationjet on course without further incident. Recommendation; if I had only kept the Global Express's data tag; and took a few extra seconds to ensure that there were no conflicts to the Citationjet; this incident would not have happened. But; because I was such hurry; I skipped my normal procedures and climbed the aircraft immediately. I let the pilots control me instead of the other way around.




Synopsis: ZSU Controller described a near loss of separation event when prematurely dropping a data block and then issuing conflicting climb instructions.