elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Workload; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: At the gate distraction of a cell phone contact with Dispatch to report significant serious legs error on filed departure (a right 360 turn) during Before Starting Engines Checklist led to oversight on flight instruments and bugs check.  Failed to see METERS mode set on Captain's DCP. Refiled with clearance to fly a different SID routing; creating compounding distraction in checklist compliance.  On climbout; the MCP was set to 7;000 in the FLCH mode 180; but the autopilot climbed to between 7;600-7;700 FT with no altitude deviation alert.  Pilot Monitoring identified deviation; directed descent.  Pilot Flying directed the Pilot Monitoring to take the aircraft and return to 7;000 FT since the Pilot Monitoring had correct altimeter display.  Neither altitude deviation nor loss of separation reported by ATC Departure Control.  Neither Resolution Advisory nor Traffic Advisory alert.  Very insidious danger since the METERS annunciation is small font buried in the flat panel display data; but resulting in virtually no alert.  The aircraft probably would have continued climb to 7;000 meters.  The 757 system does not alert the disagreement when the Pilot Flying has meters selected and the Pilot Monitoring has FT.  Apparently the autopilot prioritized meters over FT.   The Operating Manual is vague about the details.




Synopsis: A B757 Captain's altimeter was inadvertently set to meters so when the aircraft did not level at the 7;000 FT SID constraint the confused Captain gave the aircraft to the First Officer.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise we were getting a repeated issue where the control column would move slightly and cause the airplane to feel like it went through a bump of rough air. Then multiple times we had the screens flash momentarily and the auto throttle disconnected. Each time it would correct itself and everything worked normally. Eventually when this happened we got the L Gen Off light. We ran the QRH and the generator reset. Then it happened again but the QRH only allows one reset. Due to our APU being MELed we were then down to one generator. The QRH requires us to divert to the nearest suitable airport; so we [requested ATC assistance] and diverted to [a suitable alternate]. The descent and landing were normal on one generator.




Synopsis: B757 First Officer reported diverting to a suitable alternate after loss of a generator put them into a single generator operation.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I took over the sector around time XB:19. At XA:48 Aircraft Y issued a climb to reach FL360 by XB:20 and to report level due to traffic. XA:49 Aircraft Y wilco. XA:58 Aircraft X issued at time XB:20 climb to FL350 to reach FL350 by XB:30. XA:59 Aircraft X wilco. XB:21 I get a sector message restriction has not been met by XB:20 by Aircraft Y. Time XB:22 I observe Aircraft X at FL344 and Aircraft Y at FL350 and demand the aircraft. Then send a message to Aircraft Y to confirm altitude. Confirm level FL360. Right after that message went out the Aircraft X sent a message that there is traffic at FL350 at time XB:23. Aircraft X received a TCAS advisory and stated traffic passed 2 NM southeast of us. At time XB:24 Aircraft Y is now level at FL360. When I reached out to Aircraft Y to ask why he was not level he stated they were late in timing due to error they will file a report.ATOP (Advanced Technology and Oceanic Procedures) should not allow these clearances in head on situations. I felt as if I had zero time to fix the situation. These clearances get blown every once in a while and it is only a matter of time before something bad happens.




Synopsis: ZNY Center Controller reported a loss of separation due to an aircraft not climbing as instructed.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - APU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Issued MEL 49-20-01 after Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) stated this was an Oil Indication problem only. The Maintenance Release states that the ZZZ AMT noted the oil quantity was reading 0.0. The fire damage was noted two days later in ZZZ after ZZZ1 AMT had serviced APU to full and tried to start APU. The Damage could have been caused at that time. ZZZ AMT suspected an oil indication problem and called Maintenance Control for a deferral. Per MEL 49-20-01 Maintenance Step-3; I issued the Control number. [Recommend] inspecting the APU compartment every time we MEL an APU for failing to start. Routine Maintenance.

Callback: Reporter stated he is a Maintenance Controller. The original MEL 49-20-01 was applied to the MD-11 in ZZZ because of a pilot report for an APU Oil Quantity Indication malfunction reading zero. AMT in ZZZ did not look in the APU compartment to check the APU oil level due to turn around time constraints; they just decided to MEL the APU. An AMT in ZZZ1 actually checked the APU and found the APU oil completely gone; but did not see any leaks or oil residue and was unable to determine where the oil went. The earlier Pilot Report did not mention any odor or smells had been noted by the flight crew that would indicate the oil may have leaked into the pneumatic bleed duct from the compressor section. Suspicion was the oil had leaked out through the turbine section of the APU. He then serviced the APU oil to 'Full'. Reporter stated that after the MD-11 returned from ZZZ1; an AMT performing Routine Maintenance noticed heat damage to the APU Fire Containment Shroud; not fire damage. Repairs were made; but still not sure what caused the heat damage or oil loss. Looking back; MEL-49 probably should not have been issued until actual verification of the APU Oil Quantity level. Then perhaps; ZZZ Maintenance may have noticed the heat damage before requesting an MEL for APU Oil Quantity Indication.



Synopsis: A Maintenance Controller recommends that APU compartments be checked any time an APU is MEL'd for failing to start. He had previously issued an MEL for the APU Oil Quantity Indication on an MD-11 aircraft that was later found to have sustained heat damage to an APU Fire Containment Shroud and total loss of APU oil.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: S56.TRACON, UT
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E S56
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed SLC on a 340 heading climbing to 100. I acknowledged his check on but did not climb him out of 100. His routing was a little strange; so I asked my hand-off to coordinate direct RKS and 150; while I checked the ASD-X to ensure that there was not conflicting traffic behind him and that the coordinated altitude would work. In the meantime I had another controlled come sit down next to me and said they were going to take the position; and several other aircraft checked on. When I returned to Aircraft X to give the new routing and altitude; I saw that he was quickly climbing out of 102; and I mistakenly assumed that I had already given him the 150 altitude; so I did not also include that in the instruction. Aircraft X quickly continued the climb to 106; and I started giving the briefing. As I began the briefing I saw that Aircraft X was descending again; and I instructed them to expedite the climb to 150 and turned them away from terrain; but they did not respond. I issued a low altitude alert and instructed them that they were about to enter a higher MVA and advised them to expedite the climb through 120. This time they read back the instruction and started the climb. They entered an 110 MVA at 102; and I again issued the heading away from higher terrain; which they did read back. The aircraft quickly climbed out of the MVA and was turned back on course. I need to make sure to reissue instructions when I'm not 100% certain they received them; just to be on the safe side.




Synopsis: S56 Controller reported unsure of climb clearance resulting in aircraft entering a higher MVA.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Oceanic
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Much like several of my previous reports Aircraft X was entering the sector non-radar without 3 different controllers recognizing it would potentially conflict with traffic along its route. We got lucky yet again and there happened to be no traffic. This was a particularly hard to catch routing as his first strip posting was a fix that is a very uncommon posting for non-radar traffic.I amend my suggestion on how to fix this. A better plan than all the fixes on the boundary is to send the Controller a update that the next sector has accepted coordination on Aircraft X just as it does outbound. This would make the situation very hard to occur. We have discussed this solution at the facility with good responses. I was hoping that you could help generate momentum at the facility leadership level to get this done ASAP.




Synopsis: ZAN Center Controller reported an aircraft entered a non-radar sector on a route that did not ensure separation from other traffic.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu Meridian
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
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: A Meridian departed en route to LBF. There was a line of severe precipitation extending from HYS to the Northeast. ZMP is running ERAM. The Meridian asked about the line of weather; and I told him the line extended to around HYS. He advised that they would deviate to there and then turn to LBF; and I cleared him to do that. I tried a track pick reroute; using a point south of HYS; and then direct LBF; but I was unable to complete the entry. After several attempts; I realized the pick part of the entry wasn't working. I instead made the entry by entering a HYS radial and DME fix instead; and called for an ERAM Subject Matter Expert (SME). He began documenting the problem. According to one of our ERAM cadre; this was a known problem. Apparently the trackball pick functionality doesn't work in that area. He told the SME that he didn't need to write up the bug as it was already a known issue. However; I was under the impression that we were supposed to be documenting all bugs we experienced in ERAM. Dealing with this bug and helping document it was a big distraction to me. Also; it's another case where there was a known bug that controllers weren't advised of. ERAM bugs need to be fixed; and controllers need to be briefed on all known bugs.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller voiced concerns regarding the functionality of ERAM equipment.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were entered the pattern from the west making 10; 6; 3 mile calls as well as downwind; base; and final calls. We were setup on final approach when a helicopter Aircraft Y called for takeoff at midfield. I immediately asked if the helicopter had us in sight with no response. The helicopter then pulled onto the runway without stopping at the hold short line. I made and immediate go-around and had to make a sharp turn to the right to avoid a collision. Other traffic in the pattern as well as ATC prior to our entry could hear our radios just fine as well.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported an NMAC event during final approach with a non-reporting departing helicopter traffic.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 140 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Noticed on taxi that engine 2 was 100 degrees higher than engine 1; called maintenance and maintenance decided it would be ok to try and go because the temp was not out of limits.On takeoff engine 2 ITT went very fast to 815 degrees and was still higher than engine 1 so we aborted the take off.Maintenance said they found a bleed leak.




Synopsis: EMB-140 Captain reported a rejected takeoff after #2 engine ITT rapidly went high.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VRB.Tower, FL
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D VRB
ATC / advisory: Tower VRB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I cleared Aircraft X for take off and Aircraft Y was on short final.  Aircraft X responded we will hold short for the aircraft landing.  At that point I instructed Aircraft X to cancel takeoff clearance and hold short runway 30L. I slewed to Aircraft Y on the radar and it was showing 50kts.  The winds were 290 at 10 at the time.  I think that Aircraft Y's very slow approach speed threw of my internal clock [off] where I think he should be at compared to where he actually was.  I did check the final when I cleared Aircraft X and I didn't see Aircraft Y.  Perhaps my eye didn't pick up Aircraft Y moving because of the below average approach speed and him blending in to the sky. The radar data block for Aircraft Y had dropped prior to me clearing Aircraft X.  I think that was a small contributing factor but not an excuse.I need to more vigilant especially during high complex/traffic workloads and use my binoculars more.




Synopsis: A VRB Tower Controller reported clearing an aircraft for takeoff and the pilot responding that they will wait for the landing traffic. The Controller cancelled takeoff clearance and told aircraft to hold short. The Controller then went on to explain why he did not see the aircraft on short final.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E AUS
ATC / advisory: TRACON AUS
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: While on a vector to a visual to Runway 35R at AUS we were awaiting a turn to the east for left base entry to the runway. At 3000'; and in a turn to 090 degrees we [got a] TA on TCAS less than one mile off our right or south course at the same altitude of 3000' and an urgent call from ATC to the traffic 'Whoever is off San Marcos;' to turn immediately to the south. We are convinced it was the traffic that suddenly appeared; and if we didn't make the immediate turn at 30 degrees of bank to 090 degrees would have resulted in a Resolution Advisory; RA; a near miss or very abrupt maneuver to avoid collision. We feel the extended downwind vector down towards San Marcos due to heavy traffic at AUS with one runway open; resulted in us being close to VFR traffic near San Marcos.




Synopsis: Airline Captain reported a TA which resulted in evasive action to avoid worsening situation.