elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: BVU.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G BVU
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was beginning a tour of the Hoover Dam and there is a spot where numerous tour operators converge from different angles to generally follow the same 'S Turn' around the Hoover Dam. The agreed upon altitude is 3;000 ft and there are two rock peaks that mark the convergence point. I was heading toward those two peaks when I suddenly noticed a helicopter to my left at about 500 ft away. He made a call to me to ask if I saw him; but it caught me by surprise and I did not reply. I was focused on making a gentle left turn to give him space to enter the S-turn ahead of me. I did a fairly tight left 360 and fell in behind him. He was very upset over the radio and I incorrectly did not get back to him on the CTAF.




Synopsis: A helicopter pilot was beginning a tour of the Hoover Dam when he caught sight of another Helicopter about 500 feet away.  Aircraft Y pilot asked Aircraft X pilot if he saw him but the Aircraft X pilot stated that he was surprised and did not respond.  Aircraft X did a 360-turn to allow Aircraft Y to precede him and reported that he incorrectly did not get back to him on the CTAF.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD) in conjunction with the FAA is currently building a sloped 8;000 foot runway [at FLL] that will be elevated to approximately 60 feet above grade level on the East end so as to allow clearance for US Highway 1 and the Florida East Coast (FEC) railroad to tunnel below it. Construction began in January of 2012. This radical design; which is unprecedented anywhere in the world; is fraught with numerous safety issues.Of particular concern is the safe and expeditious evacuation of passengers during an emergency on board an aircraft which is disabled in the EMAS [Engineered Materials Arresting System] bed on the far east end of the proposed new runway. An MSE (Mechanically Stabilized Earth) retaining wall is proposed around the elevated portion of the new Runway 10/28 [which will replace existing Runway 9R/27L as well as an existing crossing runway] due to land use (EPA) constraints and [as well as to] significantly reduce the amount of fill that would otherwise be required to bring the runway up to the required elevation.The MSE wall will create a nearly vertical drop of 60 feet surrounding the runway safety (EMAS) area. For the safety of Airport and FAA personnel and any others that may be on the airfield; fall protection along the top of the MSE wall in the form of a parapet wall and railing is proposed. During an emergency evacuation--especially for an aircraft disabled in the elevated EMAS bed--passengers would have no viable means of escape due to the above cited MSE wall design. [Finally]; the current runway design would make it practically impossible for emergency ARFF vehicles and personnel to have unfettered access to a disabled aircraft from any direction other than directly down the runway as the sides would be inaccessible due to the MSE walls surrounding the other three sides.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain expressed concern about the adequacy of the elevated portions of the new Runway 10/28 at FLL to allow passenger evacuation and emergency equipment access to an aircraft disabled or under duress in the area surrounding the EMAS just beyond the departure threshold of Runway 28.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MDW
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were holding short of 31R at Y; waiting for our gate; to open. All aircraft were instructed to be on a backup Ground Control frequency due to issues with 121.65. Runway 22L operations were in effect. Our gate opened. Prior to our subsequent taxi clearance; we had observed three aircraft from higher odd numbered gates push back simultaneously. We wondered if Ground was going to clear us and taxi behind them. Ground did not; and they cleared us to taxi across 31R on Y and on to our Gate.No other instructions were given to us. Our taxi on Y toward the Gate was uneventful until we were approaching the left; aft side; wing (with ample room to taxi by) of the third pushed aircraft which was located parallel to Y. Both First Officer (FO) and I saw the aircraft's taxi light illuminate and aircraft immediately turn toward Y. I was stopping our aircraft; and then FO said 'stop' on radio. Ground asked who said stop; and FO identified us.After some silence with both of us stopped; and with adequate distance between us; Ground issued instructions for other aircraft to taxi to 22L. After aircraft was clear of us; we continued to gate. Prior to encounter; Ground did not issue yield instructions to either one of us. Maintain continued vigilance. Never assume ATC always has watchful eye on you. This was a breakdown of Ground Control's Communication/ situational awareness. The fact that there were many outbound and inbound aircraft at this particular time of the evening may have contributed to it. I was also surprised that Company aircraft did not appear to see us (I do not assume that we are seen anyway). Always check and recheck area around you when getting ready to taxi and while taxiing. And finally; although we were following taxi instructions; we might have taken it a step further by querying Ground Control if outbound aircraft was going to yield to us.




Synopsis: B737 Captain experiences a near collision during taxi into the gate with another B737 taxiing out. ATC had not told either pilot to give way.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Second leg of the day; on approach for an ILS to Runway 06R.  Previously had requested from approach an ILS to Runway 07R if available.  Advised unable due to approaches still being conducted to Runway 25L.  Had briefed and loaded ILS Runway 06R in active flight plan and briefed and loaded ILS Runway 07R in secondary.  After passing WAKER on MOORPARK 3 STAR [20 west of LAX] given heading 130 for ILS Runway 06R.  Shortly thereafter; approach advised us ILS Runway 07L available if we still want it.  Accepted and directed First Officer to load Runway 07L.  He activated secondary then attempted to load the ILS for Runway 07L.  He was unable to after a couple of tries.  I instructed the First Officer to advise approach we would need vectors to come back around because we were unable to tune the ILS.  I felt we no longer had adequate time to load the FMS correctly and complete the approach.  Approach gave us a turn to a heading of 360 and we were vectored around for the ILS Runway 07L.  With the extra time; the First Officer was able to load the FMS and the approach and landing were uneventful.  At no time; did approach give any indication that any procedures or limits were violated.I feel I may have put the First Officer in a stressful position of having to re-program the FMS.  In our debrief; he stated something to the effect that the time allowance due to the late runway change did not allow for any margin of error.  While I feel the necessary re-programming of the FMS was fairly straight forward; I need to realize that an individual's performance can very likely be negatively impacted under a time constraint. I will include this realization in my decision making process in the future.




Synopsis: MD11 Captain reports requesting Runway 7L at LAX for landing and being assigned Runway 6R.  The Runway 7L ILS is placed in the FMC in the secondary flight plan.  Twenty NM west of LAX; the approach is changed to ILS Runway 7R but the First Officer is unable to activate the secondary plan in a timely manner and the flight is vectored around for another attempt. With more time the First Officer is successful.
Date: 201504
Location: EGLL.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Once again on the CPT 3G departure off of 27L at EGLL; as we approached the (INTC) waypoint; the next waypoint (D257G) went white and we received a scratchpad message 'not on intercept heading'; . This is the 3rd time in 6 weeks that has occurred in 3 different aircraft; all on the CPT 3G departure off of 27L. I have also performed 3 takeoffs off of 27R using the CPT 3F departure (with a much larger intercept turn) and have never had this occur.Speaking with other pilots in London; they also have had this occur but never thought to file an FSAP report.




Synopsis: While executing the Compton 3G SID off runway 27L at EGLL; a crew noticed an FMS scratchpad message 'not on intercept heading' while aircraft appeared to be on course per the SID.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATC Center Controller gave us rapid fire reroute. Spelled out fixes faster than an auctioneer. He said PADDE; I thought he said PADDY. When I selected and checked relative position (the does it make sense rule) with the weather east it look plausible. I then advised the pilot flying it looked good. He said okay execute direct. This provided a right turn of about 30 degrees. In about 5 minutes the Controller asked for the heading. I reponded 130. He said you should be heading around 090; fly heading 090. I started investigating; he asked are you PADDY yet. I told him standby. Then asked him to clarify phonetic of PADDE. Called him back and declared now direct PADDE. He was a bit rude about the whole thing. He didn't consider that he was oversaturated and was speaking in tones that were so rushed he was difficult to understand. Next time this happens I will ask for initial vectors; look it up on the chart and ask him to verify. Won't go direct until I am sure.

Callback: The Reporter stated that he has limited familiarity with navigation fixes in that area and so after the re-route was very busy. He first had to locate the fixes; then insert them into the FMS. Given that the east coast thunderstorms resulted in numerous ATC east bound re-routes; he consider PADDY a reasonable weather re-route fix for his northeastern destination. He first looked at the inserted FMS route on the HSI for heading guidance then switched to the map mode. He did not remember the distance to the PADDY but it did not seem excessively divergent. He would suggest that in the future ATC specify PADDE with an 'E' when issuing that clearance.



Synopsis: A corporate pilot reported that after departing a Chicago area airport; an airborne weather reroute included PADDE intersection; but PADDY was inserted in the FMC. The track deviation was detected by ATC who then clarified the fix's spelling.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Air Carrier ABCD was at the runway ready for departure. I didn't notice the call sign on the ASDE-X; or I just thought it was what I was hearing. I have not seen replays to know if it was accurate or not. The supervisor had gotten a call from either the I90 or ZHU to find out what had happened. Evidently he was tagged with one of those facilities as Air Carrier EABC. I don't know how he was tagged here. Evidently; though according to the supervisor the pilot didn't change his beacon code to the Air Carrier ABCD flight plan and left it as Air Carrier EABC flight plan as the routing was the same. When they are so similar it is very easy to miss. Everyone here missed it and according to the supervisor it wasn't discovered until 70 miles from the airport. This is an ongoing problem here. I as a matter of fact just filed another report referencing these changing call signs and crews not knowing about it. I think the company needs to take a serious look at its scheduling practices before something catastrophic happens. We know that this is an issue. We should be working better as a team to let everyone around know that this aircraft could be trouble with the call sign just like we do when a pilot seems lost or has a trouble with the language. We should also be passing this information to the TRACON that this pilot may keep calling himself something else or answering incorrectly. If the call sign issue isn't addressed it boils down to teamwork and looking out for one another.




Synopsis: IAH Controller described a confused call sign event involving similar sounding four digit flight numbers.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: En route at FL350; we requested a climb to FL370. The Controller never responded for about 30 seconds; and then assigned us FL370 and to be there in 2 minutes. This didn't give us time any time to decide. We started climbing. I saw an aircraft on TCAS 1;000 FT higher than us; but I couldn't determine if it would conflict with our path and climb. After climbing 1;600 FT in about 1 minute 50 seconds we got a TA on the traffic; a B747 at FL360. He queried the ATC Controller about us. I then reported that we had the traffic in sight. We continued climbing to FL370 and after the 2 minutes had expired; we were 200-300 FT low with no extra energy to increase the climb rate. The ATC Controller never made any comments; but I felt a less than friendly attitude from him. I know that normally; it takes 3 minutes at high altitudes; to climb 2;000 FT typically; when requesting an en route climb; the ATC Controller will ask us how long it will take; if there is conflicting traffic. This Controller didn't ask. If he had; we would have told him that we needed 3 minutes. However; he never gave us any time to discuss this. We should have denied the climb; but we thought that we could make it in time; if we traded speed for altitude. The Controller never should have put us or the other aircraft; in this position. Jet aircraft at high altitude; reach a point that speed decreases to the point that climb is not possible; until energy increases again. I don't think that the Controller; forcing the issue in this case; knows this. I did; and should have refused the climb until clear of any conflict.Always have at least 3 minutes to climb 2;000 FT at cruise altitudes. Don't let an ATC Controller force you into a 'coffin corner' box.




Synopsis: A320 flight crew receceived a TCAS TA while attempting to comply with ATC instruction to climb from FL350 to FL370 in two minutes.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other takeoff roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were on the runway advancing the power for take off; the left engine quit. Take off aborted.




Synopsis: C402 pilot reported rejected takeoff due to left engine failure.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Aircraft: P180 Avanti
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: Main Gear Door
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The aircraft received a thorough preflight inspection by both crew members prior to departure). No anomalies were observed. While being radar vectored for an approach; descending through 10;000 FT; the maximum operating speed (Vmo) was momentarily exceeded by three knots (263) with an immediate correction slowing to 250 KTS. Afterwards the crew heard a loud sound; followed by a noticeable vibration. There were no abnormal cockpit indications either before or after the event - all systems appeared normal - so an emergency was not declared; and discussion of the event with ATC unnecessary. Exercising normal procedures; the crew continued the descent and approach for a normal landing; with a taxi to the FBO. A post flight inspection by the crew discovered that the left forward main gear door was missing.




Synopsis: A P-180 Captain reported losing the left forward main gear door on approach after a minor Vmo excursion.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: HS 125 Series
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaches to parallel runways were in use; Runway's 33L/33R. Runway 33R is a short runway; only 2;500 FT long; used primarily for (small) aircraft only. In this situation a DH8 (large) was landing on 33R and the H25A was landing on 33L (small). The DH8 had to slow to his final approach speed early in the approach in order to successfully land on the small runway and compression was excessive. Plus; it was unusual to have a large aircraft landing on Runway 33R and wake turbulence was overlooked. The parallel runways are considered same runway for wake turbulence and the H25A was less than 4 miles when the DH8 landed on 33R. Do not allow large aircraft to land on 33R. They have to go so slow to successfully land that it does not make the operation any more efficient than if they had gone to 33L.




Synopsis: A90 Controller described a probable loss of wake separation when a 'large' aircraft was permitted to land on Runway 33R; the reporter suggested that 'large' aircraft be prohibited from using Runway 33R.