elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: TRACON ASE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working a sector and Controller in Charge combined during the event. I cleared an aircraft for the approach to maintain 13;000 feet until established on the localizer.  As I was about to switch the aircraft to Tower I noticed that they were at 12;100 feet on the approach.  The crossing altitude at the fix they were cleared to is 12;900 feet so I issued a low altitude alert and the crossing altitude.  The aircraft responded that they did not have the runway in sight and wanted to go around.  Since they were on an instrument approach I told them to execute the missed approach.  I noticed the aircraft continued to descend; so I issued another low altitude alert; this time using the 12;100 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude as a reference since they were at 11;700 feet and advised they climb to 14;000 feet  immediately. Once the aircraft was above MVAs I issued a heading and eventually notified them of a possible pilot deviation and gave them the tower number.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported an aircraft descended below their assigned altitude and flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While transitioning VNY Airport from the North I was told by ATC to remain on the east side of the 405 freeway while pattern traffic was restricted on the west side of the 405 (standard practice). The aircraft opposite direction never read back to remain on the west side of the 405 freeway and remained on the east side where I was causing a loss of separation. I took evasive action and immediately broke right around Aircraft Y which continued straight ahead. Had I not taken evasive action it would have been a midair collision. The pilot was a solo student pilot as well. I called the tower to ensure they spoke with the pilot and asked how to best mitigate this from happening again; we agreed the controller should have verified the read back and maybe in the future they will pay closer attention to closely separated planes.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action in response to an NMAC with a solo student pilot in the traffic pattern who did not follow ATC instructions to remain on the west side of the freeway.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Workload; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff; the Flight Attendants called the flight deck and reported that Passengers were yelling that there was a fire on the left side of the aircraft. We had not yet reached our 1000 feet clean up altitude and were just beginning a turn to the west on the departure. We had no fire/overheat indications on the flight deck and all engine readings were normal. However; the intensity and concern in the Flight Attendants' report was evident; and we elected to [advise ATC] and continue our turn onto a left downwind for a return to the runway. We immediately informed the FAs of the plan to return and; given the lack of abnormal indications on the flight deck; informed them that we did not anticipate an evacuation. I flew a normal and uneventful visual approach and exited. Crash Fire Rescue immediately informed us that there was no visual indication of any fire or smoke. We verified this with Crash Fire Rescue and then elected to do a normal shut down of the number one engine as a precaution. The Flight Attendants were then contacted and informed that we still did not have any fire indications on the flight deck and that Crash Fire Rescue did not see any indications of fire or smoke. We asked the FAs again if they saw any visual indication of fire or smoke and they confirmed that there was not. At that point we elected to return to the gate.


Second narrative: I am not sure if there was anything more that could have been done to prevent the situation. Numerous Passengers reported seeing a fire from an engine. Although all engine indications were normal; return to airport as a precaution was the correct decision.


Synopsis: After takeoff; some B737-700 passengers claimed the number 1 engine was on fire; so as a precaution the crew returned to the departure airport. No fire or overheat warnings alerted during flight.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: System Monitor: Indicating and Warning
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We noticed several status messages during the flight: Flap/Slat control 1; Flap/Slat position sensors and a few others. We contacted Tech [OPS] and discussed. Decision was made to continue and possible options. As we approached ZZZ we were cleared the Arrival; Visual XXR and cleared to descend to FL 240. As we approached T/D (top of descent) VNAV path engaged and descent began. ATC then cleared us direct ZZZZZ 12000 and comply with altitude restrictions on arrival. I selected direct ZZZZZ with abeam points; executed/LNAV. FMC showed direct ZZZZZ with no abeam points. I then advised my FO (First Officer) that I would activate route 2 rebuild arrival and try again. The result was the same. We decided to use the Fix page and monitor our altitudes. Suddenly; we see red and hear aural warnings of overspeed. The VNAV indicator on the PFD was yellow with a line thru it. I immediately pulled the speed brakes and throttles were at idle. The aircraft speed was reduced. We figured the VNAV failure caused the loss of speed protection. VNAV failed to re-engage until on final approach when it engaged without being selected. After gate arrival our mechanics met the plane. After we explained what occurred the mechanics advised the aircraft has a history of items related to our events. Knowing the history of the aircraft could assist crews. However; multiple failures and their relationship with each other is a challenge for all.




Synopsis: Captain reported multiple aircraft status messages in flight and a failure of the autopilot caused an overspeed condition.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
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; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing out above 10;000 FT; pressurization Transfer Lockout and Standby ON lights illuminated.  First Officer was flying and I went to the QRH.  The procedure called for the switch to STBY then Primary.  STBY ON light extinguished.  Before procedure could be completed (as the aircraft was cleared to 16;000 feet) the CABIN ALT warning sounded; the cabin altitude and Passenger O2 ON light illuminated.  Immediately descended; emergency declared with ATC and clearance was received to 9;000 and then 5;000 FT.  Flight attendants called the cockpit to notify of mask deployment.  Aircraft diverted.  Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters inspected aircraft after landing and we proceeded to gate.




Synopsis: During climb out at 14;000 FT; an MD-80 Pressurization TRANSFER LOCKOUT/STANDBY ON light illuminated followed shortly by the cabin altitude horn and the passenger O2 light. An emergency was declared and the flight diverted to a nearby airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent engine running rough and oil starting splashing out of engine and onto cockpit. I contacted Approach and [advised ATC]. I decided to kill engine and fuel to engine and pick a field to land in. I landed safely in a field without injury to person plane or property. There was no damage to aircraft other than a small cowling puncture exit hole and oil covering the cowling and cockpit window. Upon gathering of records for preparation for insurance and FAA reports I noticed my medical had expired last month all other documents were in effect and proper.




Synopsis: BE36 pilot reported an off field landing following a rough running engine that was spraying oil.
Date: 202007
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Contributing factors: Manuals; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: MEL 34-XX-XX-XX-B applied. ADSB out inoperative. This MEL has not been updated since the mandatory ADSB requirement that was effective in January of 2020. It is no longer applicable or usable as written. Operational notes need to be added that ensure the proper notification and approval are received from the appropriate controlling agencies prior to flight. In our case; for both flight legs we were assured that these requirements had been met. While we met the FAA requirement to operate; this MEL is still problematic. This also applies to the return flight. While we ensured that the compliance was met; there appeared to be some confusion with the requirement.Outdated MEL. MEL review to ensure compliance with FAA directives. This aircraft has flown multiple legs with this MEL applied. Our crews and maintenance control need a better understanding of the ADSB requirements. PER this MEL; the aircraft should have been grounded. It is impossible to fly in the USA and not enter ADSB airspace on any of our routes.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported a particular aircraft is allowed to keep flying without ADSB using an outdated MEL.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Departure / Pushback
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was pushing a flight back from the gate. I was traveling about 4 MPH because the ramp area was full of ice. As I started my turn to position the plane tail north; the plane started sliding the opposite direction and it pulled me towards the running engine (one).  My life flashed right before my eyes and even at this moment I'm still shaken by this incident.  Doing the necessary test that the manager requested; my blood pressure was taken and it was high from the incident.




Synopsis: Tug driver reports sliding on an ice covered ramp toward the running engine during pushback. No damage or injuries were reported.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: C172 called ready to depart VUO on the CTAF. I gave the standard spiel to C172 and advised LC2 since he had an arrival for Runway 10R. About half a minute later; I saw a target near VUO at 006. I heard LC2 call traffic on a Cessna. Seconds' later R22 helicopter called LC1 off VUO enroute to TTD. Turns out the target was R22 helicopter. LC1 queried R22 helicopter about departing VUO and why he hadn't called on CTAF. The pilot informed her that he had called on VUO UNICOM 123.0. Moments later another target popped up near VUO and C172 reported in a crosswind turn. Open a tower at VUO; with RADAR capabilities; staffed with PDX Controllers. The current VUO procedures are confusing and potentially dangerous.




Synopsis: PDX Controller described a confused departure event from nearby VUO. The Reporter suggests modifying ATC procedures at VUO due to the very close proximity to PDX Airport.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on approach to 25L at 3;200 feet following Aircraft Y at 1;000 feet 5.6 miles ahead.  I asked Aircraft X: Traffic 12 o'clock; 5.5 miles a heavy Airbus do you have it in sight?'  Aircraft X said he did.  I told Aircraft X to 'Follow the heavy airbus to the same runway; cleared visual approach Runway 25L; caution wake turbulence.'   Aircraft X responded cleared visual approach.  I corrected him saying 'Follow the heavy airbus; cleared visual approach Runway 25L.'  Aircraft X responded 'Check the wake turbulence' or something to that effect.  By the time I could have responded again; Aircraft X was 4.9 miles in trail.  Aircraft X subsequently landed without incident.The frequency discipline of pilots have really degraded in the last few years.  Apparently; the ability to read back a clearance is something that is not stressed in training; nor followed up by the airlines.  I cannot tell you how many times I encounter a situation; in particular one involving wake turbulence; where the pilot sees the preceding aircraft; but does not read back the clearance as issued; thereby invalidating the wake turbulence separation and leading the controller into a loss of separation.  It is important that pilots read back clearances exactly how we state them.  That is why we use standard phraseology.  This needs to be stressed vehemently to the pilots through their associations and companies.  It may be a point of semantics; but words are the tools of communication and ATC and without their correct usage; controllers are at a distinct disadvantage; if not totally impotent.




Synopsis: A Southern California TRACON (SCT) Controller reports of read back that was a caused an operational error. The pilot did not read back key words and because of this the Controller is charged with a loss of separation.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for a Visual Approach. I had to vector the aircraft across the final approach course for the sequence through the intersection. It took several calls for Aircraft X to report the field in sight; and the aircraft was cleared for the Visual Approach on approximately a 6 mile final. The flight path appeared normal. The ASDE (Airport Surface Detection Equipment) alert went off in the radar room calling for a go-around. At that point; it was clear that Aircraft X was lined up for the parallel Taxiway E; west of the runway. The aircraft responded to the go around and eventually landed.There is a PAPI (Precision Approach Path Indicator) lighting system for Runway 35 at PHL which was NOTAMed out of service for many years. The PAPIs were originally turned off because of concerns over tall ship traffic interfering with the descent. Current procedures require aircraft landing runway 35 during the day to advise the ship in sight. At night; arrivals to that runway are stopped when tall ships are a factor. The PAPIs should be recommissioned. They are another source for pilots to help visually acquire and process the landing environment. Given the identical incidents at PHL recently; this is an easy and quick solution to enhance safety. [A few months ago]; there was a safety panel meeting at PHL where several chief pilots agreed that the tangible benefits of returning the PAPIs to service far outweighed any imagined risk of an aircraft following a PAPI glide path into a large ship which they are required to have in sight.




Synopsis: PHL TRACON Controller reported an aircraft on a visual approach was aligned to land on a parallel taxiway.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Working flight to ZZZ; I was taking a bag off of the plane and placing the one bag in the back of the tractor to take to the clime belt. As I beginning to walk to the driver side of the tractor; I did not notice anyone around the tractor before I pulled off. I looked to my left and began to look at the right side of the vehicle where the wing was located to make sure that I was pulling from the plane safe. That is when I heard the sound of someone saying ouch. I noticed the pilot came out of nowhere and I bumped her with the tractor. There was nothing to let me know that she was present. She did not make herself noticeable by wearing a safety vest or using a flashlight while doing her inspection of the plane pre-departure walk around. Pilots need to stop walking in front and between tractors and carts and wear their safety vest all the time to avoid accident or injuries.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported contacting a flight crew member with a tractor while maneuvering on the ramp.