elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: A data block auto acquired on my scope on the northwest side of the sector. It was Aircraft X. The aircraft was climbing above my airspace without a pointout. The adjacent Center sector never called with a pointout and they never called to say sorry so I don't think they even knew they did it. 10 to 20 minutes later the same sector handed off two aircraft at 35000 feet coming together one to two minutes inside our sector's airspace. I didn't get the callsigns for those aircraft but if you watch the Falcon replay you will know the two aircraft I am talking about. One aircraft was descended to 33000 feet. The other aircraft just finished climbing and was picking up speed. I put a 5 mile ring up on the arrival. When they crossed they had 5.1 miles so it would have worked but I think that's too close to hand the next controller. This should probably be stated on another report with more accurate information; but I just wanted to make sure it was at least reported.I would recommend that the controller working this sector pay more attention to their surroundings. Also let the controller know that aircraft typically speed up when they level off unless there is a dramatic change in wind speed.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported a neigboring Center Sector allowed an aircraft to fly through a corner of their airspace without coordination and then observed the same Sector handoff two aircraft on converging headings at the same altitude.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ADQ.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain; Snow
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: HS 125 Series
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ADQ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We got into Kodiak and you could see a storm not far off; we turned as quick as we could. By time the door was closed we were in heavy snow. It was 2C with dew point -3 and about 25 kt wind. PIC did a contamination check while I was paying for gas. I got in and we taxied out. I told him I want to do a contamination check when we get out to the runway; he said I could go back in the cabin and do a visual inspection. I told him that I would be getting out of the plane to check the wings and he grudgingly said Fine you work it out with ATC. Now it's been snowing heavy for about 8 minutes. We get to the end of the runway I told ATC what I was doing and they said sure. I go out and there is about a 1/4 of wet snow sitting on the wing and leading edge; and it is sticking in some places on the leading edge. The wind is pretty strong and it's accumulating on the wings. I get back inside and tell him about the wet snow sticking. He says brush it off. He has a problem with the misalign heading flag (they are right at the limit) and wants me to slew it over.  Then this is the conversation:Me: Lets talk about the wet snow on the wings; I don't care about the heading.Him: Its fine; I did a check before I don't see a problem.Me: Its WET SNOW on the wings.Him: (My name)! Please; I'm PIC and I don't see a problem with it; it's not an issue let's go now before it gets worse.




Synopsis: HS125 First Officer reported the Captain did not share his concern with wet snow sticking to the wing during taxi out at Kodiak.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ALB.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZBW
ATC / advisory: TRACON ALB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Currently the ALB VORTAC is out of service; and there is a FDC NOTAM that requires its use for a Missed Approach Procedure because the CAM is also out of service.  While our aircraft is equipped with RNAV capabilities; the clearance limit in the current NOTAM MAP is not valid using normally equipped aircraft through July XXth.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a NOTAM error.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
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 DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Conducting ILS 35L in DEN we lost both GPS receivers; had a map shift; and lost transponder.  The aircraft was established on the ILS using the ILS signal and autopilot on.  The aircraft responded normally as did the autopilot. The flight landed uneventfully.  Taxiing in GPS receivers and transponder recovered and were in a normal state of operation.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported temporary loss of GPS and transponder on approach to DEN. Both systems returned to normal after landing.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Rain
Aircraft: PA-24 Turbo Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 1B9
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Near gear-up landing during approach to minimums. During flare I realized the gear was not extended. I applied power but too late. Prop skimmed pavement. Plane rose; I extended gear and landed.




Synopsis: PA-24 pilot reported a near gear-up landing that resulted in a prop strike.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Lubrication Oil
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Rotorcraft; Other Rotor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I Departed ZZZ IFR with 3 passengers (family) for a personal trip to ZZZ1 around XA:00 this morning.  Climbing through around 5;000-6;000 feet using radar vectors to join airway; the EIS warning light came on; and the oil pressure; oil temperature gauges started flashing.  Oil pressure had dipped into the yellow and then erratically into the red.  I reduced power and notified ATC.  It was VMC conditions above 1;600 feet.  I requested the ILS for ZZZ2 and was vectored for the approach.  I maintained as low power settings as possible per the Pilatus procedures; and requested a shorter turn to final below the normal vectoring altitude: my goal was to get the aircraft on the ground as soon as safely possible.  After joining the localizer; there was no glide slope; and the ID was barely audible.  I then asked for the RNAV approach; was vectored to final; cleared for the approach; broke out at 500 feet and landed.




Synopsis: PC-12 reported diverting and making a precautionary landing after engine oil system indications showed low oil pressure and high oil temperature.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Oceanic; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X; FL360; NORTHBOUND L455; Assigned speed M078; in trail same route approx. 12 minutes behind Aircraft Y; FL360; also Assigned M078. Pilot estimates going into radar indicated separation of 10 minutes no conflict in Ocean21. Ocean21 receives a radar hit on Aircraft X and changes the OKONU estimate by 3 minutes on the late side. XX03z is now XX06z. Ocean21 provides an alert indicating loss of separation with Aircraft Y. 9 Minutes and some seconds. I reduce Aircraft Y to m076 and apply reduce separation flags for the rule of 11. I also confirm with Aircraft X; pilot estimate for OKONU. Pilot estimate was confirmed XX03z. Did we lose 3 minutes or not; but wait I have a radar target; can I discontinue oceanic separation standards? But wait both of them are radar targets now. Do I still need Oceanic separation standards? This is a problem. I advised the supervisor. Either the radar data is wrong or the pilot is giving a bad conformation or the wind data that the radar is using is wrong either way it's unacceptable! Mixed environments don't work; unless you cover it with standard operating procedures. Someone decided to turn all this radar on in OCEAN21 to enhance the overall product; without regards to the issue's controllers would be faced with. Turn it on we were told; no effects on your current operation. BS. The number of erroneous messages we deal with now is totally wrong. The display is now very cluttered with junk; etc. I could list all the problems; but have chosen just to complain about it. Besides; showing a controller a radar target in oceanic airspace; there is nothing that prevents us from using this radar for vectoring; since it's already impacting separation and updating Ocean21 profiles. It's just like ERAM; just turn it on; we will work out procedures later. Why do we do this? Finish the job! Please.There's many!




Synopsis: ZNY Oceanic Controller describes the lack of understanding in the area as to whether he/she can use the radar for separation or if they have to use non-radar procedures.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OPF.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D OPF
ATC / advisory: Tower OPF
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Requested clearance for NW departure. Controller cleared us [for] takeoff. After receiving clearance; prior to departure; I asked if they wanted us to make left or right traffic. It is usually left traffic; but I wanted to be sure because they didn't say anything. They gave us a left downwind departure. So I made left traffic and once clear of the pattern (approach end); I turned NW. The controllers don't usually give us a frequency change; they just let us go to the practice area; and don't want to hear from us to request one. I usually monitor tower until way beyond the airspace so that I can hear who is coming in. I was almost clear of D airspace. I was explaining holding procedures to my student when I hear tower make a call for another airplane that belonged to the school I work for. I knew that plane was not up at that time so I was listening again in case they misidentified my call sign (completely different from the other plane they called) as often happens at this airport. They had in fact misidentified my callsign; and had not realized it. They were calling to point out traffic. I looked at my TCAS and it showed several airplanes in my area; so I started looking for the traffic. The TCAS is often unreliable; so I try to avoid using it as my primary traffic avoidance; particularly in busy airspace. This time it identified the traffic as 400 FT above me. I did not see it until it passed right over us; as it was a hazy day. Tower then yelled at me for flying along the final approach course for one of the other runways. I was merely following the departure procedure set by our school; while also trying to fly the clearance given to me. The incoming plane was very close and there was no time to avoid. Fortunately; there were a few hundred feet of separation. Had the controller correctly identified my callsign; I could have picked out the traffic sooner. They were also speaking to that incoming plane; and could have given them a vector to avoid us when we didn't respond--because they used the incorrect callsign for us.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 instructor pilot reported an NMAC departing OPF airport.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC assigned 3000 ft. then cleared us direct DIALS for the Expressway Visual 31. DIALS is crossed at 2500. We were at 3000 and because we didn't fly over PACHU the aircraft didn't capture the RNAV Approach. We started to descend to 2500 but crossed DIALS at 2900. Kept descending; crossed PKARD at 1500 and captured approach. Plus approximately 20 knots at 1000 ft.; plus 7 knots at 500 feet. Stabilized criteria met at 500 ft. for VMC conditions. Normally ATC assigns final altitude to coincide with approach. This did not occur and because of our expectation bias we didn't catch it. Landed normally within parameters. ATC should give final altitude for fix going to when clearing for approach.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an unstable approach on a Expressway Visual arrival to LGA.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had briefed the RIIVR2 Arrival and ILS 25L approach. Passing GRAMM we still had not been handed off to SoCal Approach. Approaching RUSTT we were handed off to Approach and cleared for RIIVR2 Arrival and ILS 24R approach. This left us high and briefed for the wrong runway. Because we would not be able to satisfy RIIVR crossing restriction; we requested and received relief. While setting up and briefing ILS 24R we passed RIIVR and realized we were navigating to LUVYN still on the ILS 25L approach track. We had insufficient time to enter the ILS 24R procedure in to the FMS and complete the approach briefing for the new runway prior to the IAF due to the late ATC clearance. We requested and received a heading to intercept the ILS 24R approach and were then cleared for the approach. The approach and landing were uneventful. Approach Control did not advise of any loss of separation.


Second narrative: Light traffic into LAX; so ATC allowed us to keep our speed up but then they seemed behind the ball on issuing clearances. We were issued step-down descent clearances initially and were told to expect GRAMM at FL180. I was already in the [mental] 'get the plane down to VNAV PATH' mode. I normally brief my non-flying partner that 'if we get a different runway; you do the FMS while I make sure we comply with altitude; speed and course;' but I did not say that this time. I was still in altitude-chasing mode when the CA noticed we hadn't changed the FMS to 24R.  There was no time to re-brief the new approach and I failed to change the FMS or ask the CA to do it.Stop issuing late runway changes at LAX. This is something that happens over and over. 90% of the time there is plenty of time to make the changes; but 10% of the time it's one of those 'where are we going' moments.


Synopsis: Late descent clearances and an unexpected runway change inbound to LAX on the RIIVR2 STAR overtaxed the flight crew of a B737-800 and required Approach Control vectors while the newly assigned ILS was programmed and activated.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Leading Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After takeoff got a LE FLAP ASYM. An Emergency was declared for a non normal flap configuration landing. An approach and landing was made at the departure airport. Over weight landing of 6;500 lbs. was completed with a 150 feet VS or less per/min. No evacuation; no injuries; and no fire.




Synopsis: A B767 EICAS alerted LE FLAP ASYM after takeoff so an emergency was declared and the aircraft returned to the departure airport for an overweight landing.