elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While climbing through 16;000 feet to FL250 we received an alarm for cabin altitude. The cabin altitude was passing through 10;000 feet. As the PF I immediately stopped the climb and advised ATC. We ran the QRH and requested a new clearance from ATC to descend to 10;000 feet. At this point due to the uncertainty of the problem and the proximity to the departure airport I advised ATC that we were requesting vectors back. I advised the flight attendant via NTSB briefing as well as the passengers. Upon reaching 10;000 feet the cabin altitude alarm ceased. We notified dispatch as well as operations of our intentions to divert back. We safely arrived back and maintenance was notified and the discrepancy noted in the aircraft's maintenance log.The threats for this flight were that I was performing IOE training with a new FO and also the short flight duration compressed our duties and responsibilities. Errors were my failure to properly maintain a scan of all critical instruments during the flight to include the aircraft's pressurization. The anomaly occurred when the aircraft's cabin altitude exceeded its normal operating range. The anomaly was corrected by descending the aircraft to a safe cabin altitude.Lessons I learned from this incident are that as a Captain and new Check Pilot I should constantly monitor the aircraft for any anomalies and trap them before they become a problem. In other words I should not allow the flight to dictate the cadence of the operation. Another lesson I learned was that several times ATC asked me if it was an emergency. I felt that I had the situation under control and I did not require the additional support that comes with an emergency. In hindsight this was a foolish and 'macho' type of behavior that I must be cognizant of and work to correct especially considering that in this event I was operating the aircraft with an inexperienced FO.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain experiences a cabin altitude warning passing through 16;000 feet while training a new First Officer. The climb is stopped and descent to 10;000 feet is initiated while ATC is contacted and vectors requested back to the departure airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing I used a high speed taxiway to clear the Runway 7R; Tower said to pull up to the hold short line of 7L. I looked to the left and saw an air carrier coming from the left so I stopped short of what I thought was 7L but was actually the hold short lines of 7R. I felt something wasn't right and figured it out just as the Controller called for me to pull up to the next set of bars on 7L. Situational awareness was a factor and transitioning to taxi diagram along with taxiway traffic were all factors.




Synopsis: A pilot landed on LAS Runway 7R then held at the 7R hold short line still on 7R until he was advised by ATC to clear Runway 7R and hold at the next set of hold lines for Runway 7L.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During an IFR flight I experienced an in-flight emergency (suspected hypoxia) which required a pilot deviation to safely land the aircraft. Due to this in-flight emergency; my ability to communicate with ATC in any way was hindered and no communication was possible.




Synopsis: Cessna T-240 pilot reported hypoxia symptoms and diverted to land.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
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: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During a flight to LGA while we were on the left downwind to Runway 22 approximately abeam LGA at 4000 ft; the FO spotted what appeared to be a fixed wing drone pass within 30 ft of the aircraft by his estimate. The crew immediately reported the drone to ATC. ATC sent the crew a number to call after the flight for additional details. The Captain did not ever see the drone; but the FO said he only just saw it as it flashed past the aircraft.


Second narrative: Descending into LGA we encountered a suspected drone. We were at 4000 MSL; just east of the field preparing for an approach to Runway 22 when the encounter occurred. I made visual contact with what I thought was a large; black bird. As the object neared and passed off our right; it became clear that the object was man-made. I informed the Captain; and then ATC. I provided details included the approximate size of the object; its approximate distance from our aircraft; and our position. We did not make physical contact with the object; and the flight continued without incident.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported a close encounter with a 'fixed wing drone' at 4000 ft while on left downwind to Runway 22 at LGA.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Workload; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out on the ZZZZZ2 RNAV Departure off [Runway] XX in ZZZ. We did a precautionary takeoff for LLWS reported on the ATIS. It was a light aircraft. We climbed at a high rate and got distracted with doing the Climb Checklist. Also we were accelerating to 250 knots; which masked the level off prompt on the PF FD display. We did not honor the 10;000 foot hold-down at ZZZZZ Intersection. The PF was hand flying and climbed to 10;400 feet before noticing the hold-down symbol on the MFD maps display route. The PF immediately began a descent to 10;000 feet. Upon which ATC queried if we were climbing via the ZZZZZ2 Departure. We acknowledged our mistake and corrected.Enhanced pilot monitoring; higher situational awareness climbing with a light aircraft and notice that things are moving fast and hold off on Climb Checklist until higher altitude with autopilot on [would help prevent this type of event].


Second narrative: Normal departure and climbout. The Pilot Monitoring was slightly task saturated due to altitude approaching 10;000 feet; frequency change and checklist. The Pilot Flying failed to level off at an intermediate altitude restriction on SID.  The Pilot Flying didn't follow proper flight director guidance while hand flying the aircraft and could have used a higher level of automation. The aircraft climbed to 10;400 feet and immediately descended back to 10;000 feet when the Pilot Monitoring inquired and started to intervene. ATC asked to verify our climb clearance and stated the importance of the altitude restriction and said no other traffic was affected by our deviation.Use the highest level of automation to increase your situational awareness.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an altitude overshoot deviation due to the aircraft's light gross weight and high climb rate.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was working R30. W151 (warning area 151) was active; and there was a line of precipitation that had been causing aircraft to deviate. Many aircraft were requesting to deviate into W151; which we cannot allow. I had taken several point outs from R17 on aircraft heading northwest through my airspace; deviating for weather. In each instance I had referenced W151 when accepting the point out. In the case of Aircraft X; R17 initiated handoff less than one minute from my boundary. There was no coordination done about the aircraft deviating; nor was there information in the 4th line. I called R17 to inquire as to the intentions of Aircraft X before accepting the handoff; because Aircraft X's current heading would result in entry into W151. The controller informed me that Aircraft X was deviating left of course. I told the R17 controller that Aircraft X was deviating into W151 and that I would be unable to accept the hand off. Rather than correcting Aircraft X's course; the R17 controller elected to transfer communications to me (without the hand off completed); whilst leaving Aircraft X on a heading toward W151. I reported the violation of my airspace to my supervisor; and was able to find an acceptable heading for Aircraft X through the weather. I recommend SET (Skill Enhancement Training) for the R17 controller to reinforce the skills needed to issue weather deviations near warning area airspace; and SET to reinforce skills required to effect a hand off. I also feel; since weather deviations toward warning areas is not a rare occurrence; that perhaps a center wide briefing should be given concerning the concept of looking at the 'big picture'; rather than allowing aircraft to deviate into impossible situations (ie; fly through weather or fly through a warning area).




Synopsis: ZJX Controller described a situation where weather was causing deviations. Close by airspace was a warning area that the Controller was trying to keep aircraft out of. Another adjacent Controller gave the reporter an aircraft on a heading to avoid weather but not avoid the warning area. Reporter advised front line manager of violation and aircraft not being handed off correctly.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Once again ZAB has assigned airspeed to an aircraft and then transferred communications without advising the receiving Controller. Aircraft X reported on my frequency and advised he was 290 KTS until SQUEZ; which is on the P50/ZAB boundary line. Aircraft X was descending via the KOOLY4 Arrival (RNAV) and the published speed at SQUEZ is 250 KTS. The ZAB/P50 LOA states that ZAB must issue descend via (DV) clearance with runway transition (if applicable) on RNAV STARs. In Appendix E it states that ZAB must cross SQUEZ at 250 KTS. FAAO 7110.65 5-4-5 states for the transferring Controller must advise the receiving Controller of pertinent information not contained in the data block or flight progress strip unless covered in a LOA or facility directive. Pertinent information includes: 1. Assigned heading. 2. Airspeed restrictions. 3. Altitude information issued. 4. Observed track or deviation from the last route clearance. 5. The beacon code if different from that normally used or previously coordinated. 6. Any other pertinent information.In this case ZAB did not comply with the LOA and FAAO 7110.65. Personally I have sent in reports on this before and there are numerous reports filed by pilots flying into Phoenix that complain about ZAB and how they assign speeds contrary to what is published. In this case; it was the end of the push and ZAB46 had just two aircraft; Aircraft X and an [another jet] following him by 10 miles. When I called; ZAB Controller was not very courteous and I was just trying to discuss the speeds assigned and it appeared the pilot was confused as well how to meet what was issued. The ZAB Controller offered to pull the tapes and mail them to me. ZAB routinely assigns faster than normal speed to a fix on the ZAB/P50 boundary and do not coordinate them in accordance with directives. This has been a problem for years; help us stop this problem between the facilities. Have ZAB coordinate the assigned speed; which is required by FAAO 7110.65 or comply with the LOA. This is not an isolated incident with this area either; all four sectors that feed P50 do this.




Synopsis: P50 Controller describes situation where ZAB controllers do not advise him of a different speed that has been assigned.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Our non standard and non compliance with a new pilot bulletin to Pilots and whatever ops bullet is working under....only stated to me verbally by EWR operations as 'not in effect till [Month X]'; is going to get someone killed! I arrived into EWR around XA:07. Had to wait for Marshallers. Gate agent was waiting in jetbridge 'ready';... Just no ramp. Gate was 'NOT' prepared for a 'No apu arrival per bulletin'. Crews previous day on [flight X] [after] arriving [;] were ready and did it correctly. [The] gate had the electrical yellow cord post out; but no power cord ready on it. It was still hanging on jet bridge. Crew 'WALKED' out slowly one by one while we waited short of gate for five mins approximately. Finally we got marshaled in. With #1 engine running; crews were caulking wheels. Others were just goofing around; then shaking hands and man hugging! Still others walked right towards engine 1 while running; thus making me shut down engine for safety purposes. APU was started and put online. I opened window to ask ramper what was going on? Suddenly he had a hearing problem; so I called ops. Ops then stated that the 'NEW' procedure was not in affect till [Month X] for them....contrary to our new bulletin and also after crews day before were ready and doing it properly. This leads me to believe Ops is either miss reading there bulletin or departments aren't communicating amongst themselves. This goes to show how messed up this ops procedure is and when someone gets ingested into engine who will we blame then? Sure enough of that going around lately! Time to fix communications and procedures quickly before its to late for some unfortunate ramper.




Synopsis: Ramp procedures were not followed properly at EWR; and ramp personnel wandered close to a running engine intake while parking which forced the crew to shutdown the engine prematurely.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: PA-23-250 Aztec
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After overhauling both engines a ground run up followed. The right engine went into feather due to loss of oil pressure. The left engine started up and ran and exhibited no loss of oil pressure; however; the same incorrect bearings had been installed in that engine as well. Through an over site I mistakenly installed the wrong bearings in both engines. The owners had purchased all engine parts for the repair and had given me all the parts for the overhaul. I immediately informed the owners that I would need to open the cases of both engines and rework the problem. I knew at the time of feather that the bearings were incorrect and they would have to be replaced and I was willing to correct the mistake at my expense. The owners were long time customers with 2 aircraft that I had been maintaining for them for the last 13 years and they had no previous issues with my repairs. They decided that they would not permit me to repair the engines. He took the engines to a certified repair station. This was the same repair station that had certified all the components and provided accompanying documentation to be used in the overhaul of these engines.




Synopsis: A&P mechanic reported that during an engine overhaul; the incorrect bearings were installed in the engines of a PA-23-250 aircraft.