elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I took a handoff on Aircraft X at 11;000 coming from ABQ TRACON. The aircraft checked in and I gave him the altimeter as well as described moderate precipitation depicted on my scope. I also advised the aircraft of icing in the higher altitudes in the event he got into it and to advise if he needed deviations. The flight plan showed the aircraft ABQ.V263.CNX. V263 has a lower MIA and allows for 11;000. East of V263 MIA is 12;000. When I took the hand off Aircraft X was west of V263 so I assumed he was given a vector to intercept the airway. As the aircraft got closer to V263 and observed him [to] be a potential problem with 12;000 terrain block; I verified he was cleared V263 to CNX. The aircraft confirmed he was on a vector to join V263. I was about to be relieved for training and as I started my briefing I noticed Aircraft X in the 12;000 block; now east of V263 centerline. I told Aircraft X he was inside high terrain and turned him to a 160 heading immediately. The turn issued was below the MIA block and no Low Altitude Alert was given. My main priority was to get him away from the mountains he was heading into. I understand I should have given him low altitude alert and not good that I turned him below MIA. The airway ABQ.V263.CNX travels south east from ABQ and makes a turn to the east towards CNX; about a 60 ish degree turn. My guess is Aircraft X was planning on joining V263 inbound towards CNX instead of ABQ southbound and making that turn. Could have been a miscommunication on where to join V263 or an error on Aircraft X.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported they observed an aircraft fail to intercept an airway and flew below the Minimum IFR Altitude.
Date: 201809
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X pulled half way into [the gate] without wing walkers or a guide person in position. The ramp personal had to cautiously walk into position with the aircraft half way into the gate with engines on. This behavior could potentially be dangerous for personnel on the ground along with the potential of ground vehicles striking the aircraft.


Second narrative: After landing in DEN we were taxiing to the gate. FO (First Officer) and I observed two wing walkers giving us an 'okay' indication to proceed. As the nose marshaler wasn't in position; I taxied slowly as to not lose forward momentum since we were heavy; and moving up a slight incline. Had we stopped I would have to restart the number two engine to provide sufficient thrust to move the aircraft forward. The nose marshaler appeared very disinterested in getting into position and seemed to just 'drag' like he was being inconvenienced at our arrival. I mentioned this to my FO who agreed at how slowly the marshaler was moving. He finally moved into place and we parked. After shutting the #1 engine down and running the parking checklist; I left the cockpit and said goodbye to our passengers. I turned on my phone and had a message from [Operations Control] to call them. They told me the nose marshaler would probably be writing me up for taxiing without marshalers. In (over 10) years of being a Captain; I've never put my aircraft or passengers in an unsafe situation; in the air or on the ground. My FO (a military C17 pilot) said he saw the wing walkers and saw nothing unsafe in how I taxied to the gate. If I'm unsure of clearance or lack of wing walkers I stop the jet and wait until I feel the area is clear and the marshalers are in position.


Synopsis: Air carrier ramp employee and Captain reported the aircraft was taxied into the gate without guidance personnel in position.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: McDonnell Douglas Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to descent; got a Level 1 alert: 'Tank 1 Tip Fuel Trapped; 5;800 lbs. of fuel is unusable'; and shortly thereafter; 'Tank 1 Pumps off' and then 'Tank 1 Fuel Qty Low'.  One of the first things I did was select 'Closest Airports'. After consulting the QRH; the First Officer and I discussed the situation. I called a captain jumpseater to the front to assist us. We noticed that the fuel system (in Auto) was transferring fuel and was over 2;000 pounds out of balance and still transferring (2;900 the limit). I subtracted 5.8 from the ETA fuel of 19 and pointed out we'd land with about 13 - 'if all goes well'. But we both agreed that we couldn't see how to manually run the fuel keeping an extra 5.8 in tank 1 and not go either out of balance limits or get dangerously low in a tank or risk flaming out an engine. We agreed to 'figure this out on the ground (at the nearest suitable airport)'. I advised Center that 'We have a fuel system problem and would like to go direct'. Which we did. Landed uneventfully.


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


Synopsis: DC-10 crew diverted to a nearby airport because of a fuel malfunction that trapped 5;800 pounds of fuel in the tip tank making it unusable.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Climbing to cruise altitude of FL390 on speed on autopilot; when approximately at FL385; the aircraft experienced sudden heavier than moderate turbulence; but definitely not severe. Aircraft speed and vertical speed became erratic and increasing rapidly; speed just short of Maximum Mach Operating (MMO) speed and Instantaneous Vertical Speed Indicator (IVSI) just short of 6;000 FPM.In an attempt to not let aircraft overspeed and not injure flight attendants (footers were narrow) I took control of the aircraft leveled at FL396 and descended back down to FL390. Informed ATC of the deviation and the rest of the flight was uneventful.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported he deliberately overshot his level off altitude because he was dealing with moderate turbulence and was concerned about an overspeed.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CYEG.Airport, AB
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Fatigue; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Controller had vectored us directly to CYEG and; when he asked if we had the field and we answered yes; cleared us for the visual. I turned to a downwind heading and extended it to about 9 miles from the field because we were not going to have much of a base leg since the Controller did not give us any kind of offset to setup for the approach. During the downwind to left base for Runway 12; I asked the First Officer for an altitude to descend to. He said 3;400 [FT] MSL. I looked briefly at the chart while trying to see the runway and saw 3;400 FT [FAF inbound crossing altitude] as well as 3;700 FT [procedure turn altitude] on the chart. I said to set 3;500 FT. Prior to course intercept; I saw 1;100-1;200 FT on the radio altimeter while still some 8 NM from the field. I initiated a climb and the rest of flight was uneventful. I should not have accepted the visual. Because I was busy trying to maintain my situational awareness as to the field; I mistakenly didn't question the low altitude given to me by the First Officer.I was assigned this trip Sunday evening and; although I did try lying down before the 'near midnight Central' show time; I did not get any sleep prior to this trip and; thus; had had only two hours sleep in the previous 24 hours.




Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew; cleared for a night visual approach to Runway 12 at CYEG descended too low while on downwind and executed a climb to a higher altitude to position themselves vertically for their base and final approach legs. The reporter cited fatigue as a major contributing factor.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Icing
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; 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: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight to ZZZ; filed and cleared FL230. While in the cruise phase we decided to climb up to FL250 in the attempt to get above the clouds. Another aircraft reported moderate rime ice in the area so I was monitoring the icing probe and conditions. We were then cleared DIRECT to ZZZZZ and to descend via the [arrival] landing north. The Captain had briefed the arrival and stated we would start down at TOD.On the descent profile we ended crossing ZZZZZ [which has a charted minimum altitude of FL240] at 23500-ish. ATC advised us of our deviation and we stopped our descent and discussed with ATC. We then continued our descent on the arrival.Conditions during the event Night IMC in icing conditions. When we changed altitudes from FL230 to FL250 we were now above the crossing constraints at ZZZZZ but because we had reviewed the arrival prior climbing; the constraint at ZZZZZ wasn't displayed because we were below it. If the Airbus system hadn't deleted the constraint we would have seen it and trapped the error. I don't understand why the Airbus will remove restrictions on an arrival but not on an ILS.Had we stayed at FL230 we would have crossed ZZZZZ below the published restriction but legal because we never went above FL240.The Airbus FMS system is flawed and it is a widely known programming error in the system. On every flight release it even states that there is a problem in the program. The responsibility has been placed squarely on the backs of the pilots to catch all of the Airbus altitude Nav failures. As a pilot on the Airbus for [many] years I have never missed an altitude crossing restriction. ZZZ has so many altitude windows on the STAR it's very likely that most pilots will bust an altitude restriction eventually.Upgrading to the latest FMS nav system program on the Airbus system might solve the altitude deviation problems. If this is not fixed it's the pilots who are the last line of defense.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported overshooting a crossing restriction on arrival; citing a known Airbus FMS issue as contributing.
Date: 201406
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Other Non-Flight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While reviewing the new company mandated SOP's; checklists and flows which have been mandated for introduction; I found unsafe procedures; such as the Thrust Reverser Check page. As a former air carrier Check Airman; my experience tells me this introduction of AOM procedures without proper training is unsafe and goes against all common sense. As an FAA Designee at that carrier; I would have never accepted such confusion of responsibility in the cockpit. There are too many unsatisfactory flows; SOP's; checklist changes to enumerate here. Please provide proper training and rewrite the new AOM procedures to be safe and logical.


Second narrative: While reviewing the new company mandated SOP's; flows; and checklists...I found a dangerous SOP that needs FAA scrutiny. The new SOP requires the left seat pilot to allow the right seat pilot to control the throttles while taxiing when doing the T/R check. This has a great potential for confusion and a possible accident while taxing. Transfer of controls from left to right seat happens on the runway for obvious safety reasons. Previous SOP's the left seat pilot manipulated the throttles and the right seat pilot checked the switches. This allows for a safe seamless positive control of the aircraft. The new revised SOP's and checklist needs to be re-written for a safety standpoint.  If the 'new' SOP's are to be used the crews must be trained in the simulator to insure safety is adhered to. The New Checklist SOP Flows needs to be put off until [next year].


Synopsis: A CE-750 flight crew took vocal exception to their company's introduction of new SOPs and checklists based both on what they perceive to be unacceptable aspects of those documents and the need for simulator training on their use prior to introduction.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VFR; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Grumman American Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 137
Flight plan: None
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was operating a Garrett Turbine powered Schweizer G-164B Ag Cat with FAA Part 137 operations. I was ferrying the aircraft at 500 AGL back to the home airport. I was 45 minutes into my one hour planned flight as I noticeably lost most power. I examined the torque gauge that went from '42' to '28' immediately (28 is at the bottom of the green arc for power). The torque gauge remained there for roughly 20 seconds then all power was lost. My engine RPM stayed at 100% throughout the whole dropping of the torque. I declared an emergency and found a road with no power lines or vehicles and landed. Rolling into the ditch I jumped out to find the wings had got into the ground and were slightly bent on the ends and the propeller blades were bent. The airframe was not effected and there were no chemicals on board. The police arrived immediately along with ambulance and fire trucks. There were no injuries to myself or anyone else and no property damage. The FAA was notified immediately after the incident.




Synopsis: Schweitzer Ag Cat pilot reported engine failure in flight. Reporter declared an emergency and landed on a road with minor damage.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight

Narrative: I was the PM (Pilot Monitoring) and the CA (Captain) was the PF (Pilot Flying). I believe the CA was hand flying. We were descending southbound on a base leg for a visual to RWY 26R in ATL; we encountered a drone at close range. We were 13 miles or so from the ATL VOR; just outside of the 12.0 DME arc of class B airspace; which exists between 3;000 - 12;500 ft. MSL. We were descending out of 5;200 ft. MSL or so; when I saw a dark-colored drone; northbound; at approximately 4;900 ft. We both saw it once it was at our 2:00 - 3:00 position; so evasive action was unnecessary; but it was within a wingspan or two from us. It was also 200 - 300 ft. below our altitude and we were descending. We reported it to ATL TRACON. They asked the pertinent questions and notified aircraft behind us; but; from what I heard before leaving the frequency; there were no other sightings.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew observed a UAV within several hundred feet. Flight was in Class B airspace on base turn of approach.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X departed and was climbing on the SID. Aircraft Y subsequently departed on the same SID.  When Aircraft Y's tag acquired they were 2.8 miles behind and only 10 knots slower over the ground than Aircraft X. Having encountered this scenario numerous times before; I immediately utilized the shoutline to the Local East controller and assigned 3;000 feet to Aircraft Y. Since Aircraft X had already vacated 3;000 feet; I knew I would at least retain vertical separation.  Within 10-15 seconds Aircraft Y had accelerated to and exceeded Aircraft X's ground speed. Within one minute of Aircraft Y's departure they were showing 30 to 40 knots faster than their preceding traffic. Aircraft Y was subsequently vectored and climbed appropriately in-trail of Aircraft X and both left our airspace without further incident.This is a common problem that we experience with A321 departures. I do not know why this specific aircraft type climbs out so differently; but it is common knowledge at the TRACON.  Tower does not seem to consistently take into account the performance of A321s on departure. Without my anticipation of the problem and action to retain vertical separation; there would have been a loss of separation.The Letter of Agreement (LOA) with Tower should be changed to exclude the use of pilot provided visual separation and require the provision of additional spacing to account for the lackluster performance characteristics of A321s' on departure.  I would recommend a provision of 4 to 5 miles between an A321 and subsequent departures.




Synopsis: A Departure Controller reported an A321 departing climbed at a much slower speed than a trailing B737 requiring them to vector the B737 away to maintain separation.