elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EC135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While working Approach a Medevac helicopter broadcast an initial call on my frequency. The EC-135 was a previously unidentified pop-up call; but I recognized the call sign from Proposed Satellite Departure IFR flight plans that I had in my bay. The EC-135 had an IFR flight plan on file from ZZZ1 to ZZZ2. On his initial call the EC-135 reported that he was declaring an emergency and climbing because he had inadvertently entered IMC. I asked him to IDENT. I RADAR identified him 2 miles east of ZZZ3 and asked him his intentions. He requested to pick up the IFR flight plan that he had on file. I issued the IFR clearance including a climb to an altitude above my MVA. At that time; the EC-135 was approximately 1 NM south of my airspace boundary (in [a sector of another TRACON]) tracking northbound. I immediately attempted to coordinate with [other] sector. The Controller at that sector did not answer the line and soon the EC-135 was solidly in my airspace. Due to the emergency nature of the flight I continued to handle the situation in my best judgment. Once above my MVA I began expeditious medevac handling and vectored him toward his requested destination. At that point the EC-135 terminated his emergency. ZZZ2; the EC-135's destination; is in [another sector controlled by another TRACON]; so I achieved the appropriate RADAR hand off/coordination required for any standard operation. Due to the medevac/emergency nature of the event I believe everyone involved handled the situation to the best of their ability.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described an airspace infraction when a medevac helicopter encountered IMC awaiting his IFR clearance and coordination with an adjacent sector was not completed prior to issuing the IFR clearance.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
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: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: While climbing out and talking to Center; we were advised to participate with CPDLC (Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications) clearances through Center. We then acknowledge verbally and with CPDLC. We were given two route clearances in which we complied with via CPDLC with acknowledgments. Shortly after we received another clearance and it was to climb to FL330. We then acknowledge the CPDLC and commenced the climb to FL330. Shortly after reaching FL330; Center asked us to confirm our altitude. We then told him we had complied with his clearance to climb and maintain FL330. He said he only showed FL300 as our clearance. We told him that our CPDLC clearance showed different. It show a clearance to climb to FL330. He then ask us to descend and maintain FL300; so we did. It was then that I took a picture of our ATC clearances on the FMC CPDLC page. The picture clearly shows a clearance to climb and maintain FL330. I have pictures on my phone of the ATC clearance; but there is no way to attach them to this form.


Second narrative: Center sent us a CPDLC (Controller-Pilot Data Link Communications) message directing us to climb to FL330. We responded to message. Center later asked us to confirm assigned altitude. We responded that FL330 was sent to us by CPDLC. Center then asked us to descend to FL300. I have pictures of CPDLC message that shows FL330 was indeed the assigned altitude.


Synopsis: B767-300 flight crew reported a discrepancy between a data-link communication altitude and the altitude ATC required.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pushback from Gate; we had to wait for the aircraft next to us to park before starting our taxi.  His parking was delayed (properly) by the marshaller as numerous ground service vehicles drove in front of the aircraft.Once they finally cleared; I turned my taxi light on and started to turn; only to have to slam on the brakes and stop as a baggage cart and a catering truck both drove in front off my aircraft.  Had I not stopped; my wing would have made contact with the catering truck; and the baggage cart would have been well under my wing.This problem in seriously increasing in Denver.  Ground vehicles on the service road in front of the gates are not yielding to aircraft; especially on taxi-out.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a ground conflict with non-yielding vehicles during taxi-out at DEN airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Shortly after block in; the Ramp Agent notified us that our aircraft had been loaded incorrectly. The offload crew reported that the container in position 7R was reported to have weighed 4;220 lbs. It actually weighed 8380 lbs; or 2228 lbs over the allowable limit. The maximum weight allowed for that position is 6152 lbs. The container in Position 7R was incorrectly weighed or improperly recorded.


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


Synopsis: A300 Flight Crew reported that an overloaded cargo container was discovered after block-in at destination.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Slat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent while extending the slats; we got a 'slat disagree' light. We recycled the flaps; slowed to a much lower speed and reattempted with same results. Requested extended downwind; accomplished the checklist and executed a slats up flaps 28 landing as directed by the checklist. Declared an emergency and flew an ILS with the HUD. Landed with no problems noted. Had no excessive brake heating so we canceled the emergency and taxied to the ramp. After parking did visual inspection saw no damage and tires were normal with no damage to tail skid. No notable problems to report.


Second narrative: Abeam the airport; on descent; the slat disagreement light illuminated at slat extension. No rolling movement with aircraft was noted. Put slats back up; tried extension at slower speeds. Started reviewing red tabs. Informed ATC we needed to extend our downwind. Red tabs dictated a slat ret/flaps 28 degree landing. Reviewed and complied with red tabs. ATC did a good job extending our pattern to the south. We finally had to declare an emergency and accepted vectors back to the runway. A bit difficult relaying a flight control malfunctions to ATC/Tower. Tried to explain aircraft was going to make a faster landing than normal and no other assistance necessary. I believe one other aircraft was in the pattern and they had to do one 360 degree turn. The rest of approach/landing uneventful. Walk around after the flight showed slats stowed and no tail strike. I felt ATC did a good job monitoring our position - keeping us in their airspace. Too much communication would have made things worse.


Synopsis: A MD-11 EICAS alerted SLAT DISAGREE so the crew declared an emergency; completed the QRH; landed uneventfully with slats up; flaps 28 and taxied to parking with no brake overheat.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was released for departure off of Runway 30 SQL; VFR downwind procedure. Aircraft Y was VFR inbound about 15 east of San Carlos Airport. Aircraft Z was IFR inbound on an instrument approach about 20 east of SQL. Aircraft X departed SQL and executed a climb to 2;100 heading 120 as prescribed but never checked onto departure frequency 135.65 (Woodside sector). Subsequently; Aircraft X climbed into and merged with Aircraft Y at 2;100/2;200 feet. I contacted SQL Tower to try switching him again; they said they had. I broadcast on guard to Aircraft X to contact NCT on guard; at which point he keyed up finally on my frequency. By this point Aircraft X had possibly lost lateral separation with Aircraft Z who was inbound to SQL over PAO descending out of 3;100 feet.Aircraft X was issued a climb and turn to heading 250. I then withheld the climb to 5;000 feet and restricted Aircraft X to 2;100 in reference to Aircraft Z. Once it appeared as though divergence had been established Aircraft X was issued a climb to 5;000. By this point Aircraft X was approaching an MVA of 3;000 and another shelf of 4;000. Aircraft X was vectored to the northwest in reference to the MVA thus again causing a loss of lateral separation with Aircraft Z who was still descending inbound to SQL.The 'VFR downwind' IFR departure route out of SQL is a questionable procedure to begin with. It allows aircraft on an IFR flight plan to depart in VFR conditions and turn out to the southeast towards incoming traffic into SFO and SQL; making it essentially an opposite direction departure.




Synopsis: An NCT Controller reported releasing a departure on a departure procedure which reverses course towards inbound traffic. The pilot of the departing aircraft did not contact the Controller in time for the Controller to vector the departure out of the way of two arrivals.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FLO.TRACON, SC
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E FLO
ATC / advisory: TRACON FLO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was an OJT Instructor watching a trainee and focusing on another potential conflict developing and did not hear the trainee clear Aircraft X for the Approach. I spoke to the trainee about the developing situation and it caused both of us to overlook the antenna and the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) in that area that the aircraft was descending in.Be more cognizant of the entire situation and save teaching moments until after all situations are remedied.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller conducting training reported not hearing their trainee issue a clearance which placed an aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Throttle/Power Lever
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending out of FL300 with an initial level off at FL180; aircraft leveled off as was set on Flight Control Panel (FCP). Aircraft was in Profile Mode. Since we were deviating around weather and were further away from our next position on the arrival; I selected a higher speed on the FCP (290 KTS) than what was being commanded by the FMS. Aircraft slowed through the set speed on FCP with no response from the engines. Aircraft was in the Thrust Mode with Autothrottles engaged. Airspeed kept on decreasing; so we physically advanced the throttles forward with no response from engines. Ignition override; as well as Engine Anti-Ice was turned on. Throttles were cycled a couple of times before we eventually got a response from the engines. Operation of the engines beyond this point in time was normal. Aircraft then accelerated to the set speed on the FCP. There was weather in the area but we were never in clouds throughout the descent before this event took place. This sequence of events lasted about 30 seconds with a loss of approximately 30 to 40 KTS. Autopilot-1 and Autothrottles were always engaged.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 did not contain additional information.]


Synopsis: A Captain and First Officer report that after leveling off on initial approach; engine thrust did not respond when they physically advanced engine throttles several times on their MD-11 aircraft to correct for decreasing airspeed. Aircraft was in Thrust Mode with Autothrottles and Autopilot engaged.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PMD.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E JCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON JCF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Departure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X departed PMD within 1 mile off the end of the runway was climbing through 10;300 and IFR traffic [on the] LYNXX8 arrival. The controller didn't have time to issue traffic until it was too late. We never received a rolling call or any coordination about the fast climbing aircraft.Tower [should] give rolling calls on all fast climbing departures off of PMD.


Second narrative: Aircraft X departed from PMD VFR and climbed through 10;000 feet in under 2 miles. He flew through the aircraft on the LYNXX8 arrival. By the time he was shipped to our frequency from Tower and communication was established all that we could do was issue a traffic alert to the arrival aircraft. It was too late for Aircraft X. This happens far too often when [these aircraft] come out of PMD.If PMD Tower calls with a rolling call then I could stop Aircraft X bellow my traffic. This would give the radar team some time to work on a plan to deconflict other traffic; VFR and IFR.I recommend that PMD calls with a rolling call on all VFR high performance aircraft. If Aircraft X turns north sooner he could avoid the conflict all together. Aircraft X is taking on a lot of risk by climbing through the KIMMO and LYNXX arrivals like they do. In the past there have been many RA's that I have seen from this happening.


Synopsis: JCF FLM and Controller reported of a fast climbing aircraft that was out of 10;000 feet within 1-2 miles of the end of the runway. The departure was traffic for an enroute aircraft and traffic was not issued. The Departure Controller never received a rolling call. A loss of separation did occur.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Speedbrake/Spoiler
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored around because of an overload in traffic due to storms. I had the spoilers out due to ATC instructions for altitude and speed. After being cleared for the River visual 19 approach we encountered a scud layer at 1800 feet. I advised Pilot Monitoring (PM) that I lost visual of the river. We had the LDA Z 19 loaded in the FMS and LOC was captured. We were descending and the PM asked that I go to white needles to load the visual. When I went to white needles I lost situational awareness and advised the PM. PM grabbed the controls and executed a go around. We received three stick shaker events before we were established on the go around. The call for set max thrust and check spoilers was never made. After we climbed 3000 feet PM stowed the spoilers. We went back around and PM landed the plane.




Synopsis: CRJ First Officer reported losing sight of the river during a River Visual 19 at DCA. The Captain assumed control of the aircraft to go around and did not notice that the spoilers were extended causing three stick shaker events before leveling at 3000 feet.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We contacted Approach and were given the wrong altimeter setting while in moderate turbulence. While on approach to 31R we were issued a low altitude alert and we checked our instruments to verify then realized the altimeter setting was wrong. We continued without further incident.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 contains no additional information].


Synopsis: When an EMB145 flight crew received a low altitude alert from the Tower while on approach they discovered the QNH setting from Approach Control was inaccurate. They then set the correct setting and continued without further incident.