elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMSD.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MMSD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight; Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: MMSD Air Traffic Control Tower combines their Local Control and Clearance Delivery on the same frequency.  I believe this is a dangerous practice.  During our preflight; we contacted Ground Control to request our clearance.  We were told to contact Tower for that.  While monitoring ground frequency; we heard several other flights request their clearance and then told to go to Tower frequency.  When we went to tower; the controller was clearing aircraft for takeoff and landing while simultaneously issuing clearances.  Tower was spending more time reading clearances than controlling.  Because of the language barrier; several aircraft had to have their clearance read back several times thereby clogging up (jamming) the Tower frequency.  During our takeoff; just as we started to apply takeoff power; another aircraft started to read-back their ATC clearance.  Because of the timing of this; we were unable to communicate with the Tower.  And; the Tower would not have been able to communicate with us on the frequency.  If we needed to reject or if the Tower needed to notify us to reject; there was no way to do that because the radio was jammed.  Additionally; the distraction caused by the other aircraft jamming the frequency made it very difficult for me to concentrate on my takeoff procedure duties.  My First Officer; who was the Pilot Flying; also complained that it was hard to stay focused during the takeoff; rotation and gear up calls.  This is the second time this scenario has happened to me at MMSD and this is the second time I've written a report over this issue. Tower frequency is being used as a Clearance Delivery frequency. Tower frequency needs to be used exclusively for controlling aircraft.  Clearances should be requested and received on a different frequency.  Either on Ground Control frequency or a dedicated CD frequency.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported MMSD uses Tower frequency for both clearance delivery and local control; resulted in miscommunication; frequency jamming; and distractions on takeoff.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: ATC did not mention anything about this so I'm not sure if this is an issue; but usage of the iPad is involved so I wanted to report. Captain was flying; descending via Tyssn 3 arrival into LAS... Captain said it was his first leg into LAS after many years.... Descending in VNAV between CEJAY and KADDY; aircraft started to get high on the profile after transition altitude; which I called out. At some point the Captain switched to Level Change to catch up. I dialed in 12;000 in the Altitude Alert window; the next restriction. We both were using iPads per new procedures; though I did have paper charts out as backup. While this was going on; Captain's iPad auto locked; blanking his chart screen. I called out that we needed to level at 12;000. It started to overshoot and we may have gone up to two hundred feet below 12;000 (11;800) and returned to 12;000 in only seconds. The rest of the flight was uneventful. The LA Center Controller did not mention it and subsequently switched us to approach.While late night flying and the Captain's first trip into LAS may have been contributing factors; his iPad blanking at just the right time seemed to unsettle him a bit as he mentioned in later discussion. Better awareness among the pilots about ways to prevent the iPad from doing this may help the iPad transition to be more successful. If the iPad requires a passcode to show the charts again; it can be nearly impossible to quickly bring the screen back up; especially in turbulence. That segment of the star doesn't allow a lot of room for error due to a 'get down and slow down' requirement. I felt like I was aware of what was going on and thought 12;000 would be captured without overshoot; but we did go slightly below.




Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew momentarily descended 200 FT below altitude restriction on LAS Arrival while in Level Change mode. Loss of chart display on Captain's Ipad cited as a factor.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Called by FOQA Gatekeeper and advised of overspeed of 8 knots when flaps moved to 10. Flaps were inadvertently moved to 10 when flaps were at 2 and Flaps 5 was called for. I cannot see gate settings from Captain's seat and must have moved the handle too far and into the gate for Flaps 10; when Flaps 5 was called for. Gatekeeper stated the event occurred at 4073 FT; on final for Runway 25L and outside of HUNDA intersection. We were behind a B767 and given 9 miles separation and cautions about possible wake turbulence; of which there was some. Winds were down the runway at 8-10 knots. This was day 6 out of 6 in a row of being on duty. Given the callouts and verification procedures we already have in place; it seems emphasis for Captain's as non-flying pilots to look around the throttles to verify the requested flap gate is actually selected; after verification; may help. Problem is; in the busy approach/speed and configure changes environment; it may not be possible to do that at all times.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported mistakenly selecting flaps 10 when flaps 5 were called for; leading to an overspeed.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Climb out of ZZZ; passing 2000 MSL for 4500 MSL VFR contacted Approach (for Class C passage. Heading out ZZZ was a heading of 187 for 10-15 miles; then a planned crossing [a large body of water] after gaining at least 3500 MSL for safe crossing (needed glide distance w/o floatation).At 2100 MSL climbing ATC directed an 'at/below 2500 MSL'. Student pilot replied 'unable 2500 after 60 seconds'. ATC did not acknowledge; but then gave two vectors to what I (the CFI) believed to be the other conflicting aircraft). 2 minutes later (approaching 3000 MSL) ATC queried our altitude and repeated the 2500 MSL restriction. I replied (as CFI) to ATC that we were unable to maintain that altitude because we needed to cross the water at a higher altitude. I heard in background a 'traffic alert' and the controller then called traffic '1-2 o'clock'. I sighted the traffic which was slightly moving in the windscreen; but not much. Possibly on collision course. I took the aircraft from the student and rolled a 45 degree right bank turn in VMC; reduced power and descended about 200 feet. I then called to ATC that traffic was in sight; no longer a factor; and I would keep in sight.I resumed the climb toward 4500 and crossed the water climbing through about 3300 MSL. After the crossing; ATC directed a call for debrief and I pledged to call after mission complete. Mission completed and I called ATC. Controller had gone home; so I followed the call in the morning as directed and debriefed ATC supervisor.




Synopsis: Cessna 150 Flight Instructor report being unable to comply with ATC altitude direction followed by an evasive maneuver for traffic.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was the beginning of my mid shift. I was working the TRACON all combined at one Departure scope and we had just switched to a night noise operation. I had several aircraft on my frequency. I had a FLC (Flight Check) requesting to do operations to an opposite direction runway and when advised unable he had an alternate request that I was unfamiliar with; I was also controlling aircraft departing and arriving satellite airports as well as our Air Carrier airport. I was also coordinating with an adjacent facility. I cleared a LJ45 for a visual approach approximately 12 miles out and issued the traffic on a C208 he was following and assigned a speed of 165. I slowed a CRJ to 150 KTS. A few moments later I reissued the traffic but the LJ45 still did not have the C208 insight. So I cancelled his approach clearance assigned an altitude of 030 and a heading of 360. I continued working my other aircraft clearing the CRJ for the visual then came back to the LJ45 and assigned him a heading of 270. I then continued the LJ45's turn to a 230 heading for the downwind all the while he was still descending to 030. It appeared that my downwind turn for the LJ45 may have been to close to the final and so I turned him out to the right 10 degrees and issued the traffic on the CRJ. But separation had apparently already been lost. Don't be too quick to combine positions and have more than one person working the mid.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller working all positions combined on a mid shift experienced a loss of separation event; noting the quick combination of positions in this case was not a good idea.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: ZZZ was going ATC zero for a cleaning due to coronavirus.  We had aircraft still in our airspace at the time of the scheduled cleaning.   We were advised by management to terminate radar and to flash the aircraft to the next facility or sector that they would be entering next.  Fellow controllers later told us that we couldn't do this; but no official guidance from the FAA has been given to us on what the proper way was to handle this.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported there was no official FAA guidance regarding how to handle traffic in the airspace when the facility went ATC zero for COVID-19 cleaning.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military Trainer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Other Air Show
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A normal tail-low wheel landing was made and as the aircraft was rolling out the left main gear began a slow collapse followed by the right main gear. The aircraft departed the right side of the runway. There were no injuries or property damage other than to the aircraft.




Synopsis: Pilot of a Fairey Firefly reported that the main gear collapsed on landing rollout.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Heavy Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the SADDE 6 Arrival in LAX; we were given descent to 7;000 FT approximately 10 NM west of SMO VOR by SOCAL Approach. At approximately 8;500 FT we encountered moderate turbulence from a preceding heavy aircraft. Roll change of approximately 30 degrees was experienced almost immediately and I disconnected the autopilot began a level off to stay out of the wake turbulence. Captain advised Approach Control of the level off at 8;400 FT due to wake turbulence; but the Controller was saturated with a lot of calls. He did not acknowledge our transmission. Later the Controller advised us; we need to tell him of level off and we need to keep coming down due to other traffic at that altitude. After additional spacing with preceding traffic; we landed without incident. The Controller had us 12 miles behind heavy traffic. This should have been more than enough; but this day; it was not enough space to keep us out of the wake zone. This is a busy time for both the pilots and controllers; but perhaps further distances are needed at times to prevent such events.


Second narrative: ATC needs to give a higher priority to aircraft that encounter wake turbulence. There was little response from ATC when we advised them of the turbulence.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported wake turbulence encounter during arrival to LAX in 12-mile trail that resulted in sudden 30-degree roll. Crew paused their descent and were subsequently criticized by ATC.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On an IFR flight plan from ZZZ to ZZZ1.  My original destination was to be ZZZ2; but I chose ZZZ1 due to weather.  While in flight I monitored the weather radar to see if it would have been possible to get through to ZZZ2.  Radar results were looking positive and I also heard VFR traffic requesting flight following [in a location] which would have been across my desired flight path.  I chose to cancel IFR and continue VFR to ZZZ2 with flight following.  Visual conditions were clear and I would turn back if I didn't like what I saw.  I selected direct to ZZZ2 from my present position which took me directly over four towers referenced above.  [Approach] asked confirmation that I had the towers in my view; which I did.  At the time; I was at 3;100 feet which would not have been sufficient.  My on-screen terrain guidance showed red and I increased altitude to 3;800 in advance of the towers.  My on-screen terrain guidance moved from yellow to blue.  I believe I was clear of the towers in altitude as shown by my on-screen indicators; but should have been at the proper altitude earlier.  The switch in the flight and change in destination; I checked the charts and did not get the right MEF [Maximum Elevation Figure in a quadrant] on the VFR charts.  It was discovered by visual indication on my terrain guidance as well as on the call from Approach.




Synopsis: The pilot of a Beechcraft BE35 flying at 3;100 feet was warned of obstacles ahead on his flight path by ATC. He also received warning of the impending catastrophic conflict with the towers ahead by his onboard terrain guidance equipment.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An aircraft was enroute on an Open Skies route. One of the routes that was approved at 10;000 feet; is through an area with a Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA) of 16;000 feet. The route clips the MIA and enters for approximately 5 miles along its route. I advised the aircraft that the route has a minimum IFR altitude of 16;000 feet and that he would have to turn 15 degrees right to avoid the area otherwise he must climb to 16;000 feet. The aircraft replied that he would like to stay on route and altitude because he is in 'good visual and good VMC conditions'; I told him to turn to a heading of 360 degrees because of the minimum IFR altitude of 16;000 feet. He again replied he was in 'good VFR and VMC conditions'. The aircraft proceeded on route and was in the 16;000 MIA area for approximately 1 minute.It appears that the 'Open Skies' procedure is something we do not do very often and although we asked for a briefing upon hearing it was happening on the same day (we did receive a brief). As a facility we should have a binder or a briefing checklist that can review the items of note. After the incident I noticed that the 7110.65 does not extensively cover the 'Open skies' procedures. It could be helpful to have a briefing once a year then prior to the procedure have another briefing that would cover the items of note; such as leaving the aircraft on its route and altitude unless it is a safety issue; there seems to be conflicting notes between the 7110.65/Open Skies agreement and another order that was brought up.




Synopsis: A Controller was working an aircraft flying under the Open Skies procedure. In this case the route was below the minimum IFR altitude for a short period. The Controller advised the aircraft twice and issued a vector off course. The aircraft refused and stayed on its route advising the Controller they were in VMC. The reporter feels the controllers are not trained and briefed sufficiently to work aircraft on this procedure.
Date: 202008
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During these irregular operations (COVID-19); aircraft are parked in places they normally would not be; congestion is the norm; where aircraft have to be maneuvered around obstacles; usually other aircraft. When dispatched to move Aircraft X that had Aircraft Y behind it; despite an exceedingly cautious operation to ensure the safety of both aircraft and all personnel; an equipment failure led to Aircraft X being pushed into Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported pushing an aircraft into a parked aircraft while maneuvering through a congested parking area.