elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Denver 8 Controller handed us two aircraft at the same altitude. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were on converging courses at FL350. I called the Denver 8 Controller to reroute Aircraft Y to direct BDF when Aircraft Y was one minute outside our boundary. Aircraft X was 4 miles in front of Aircraft Y. Aircraft X was flying at MACH .77 and Aircraft Y was flying at MACH .80. If I hadn't initiated the call and given the Denver 8 Controller Control instructions; these two aircraft would have lost separation within two minutes of crossing our boundary!Recommendation: retrain Denver Center.




Synopsis: Minneapolis Center Controller reported that Denver Center would have given him a loss of separation if he had not called them and fixed it prior to aircraft entering his sectors airspace.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was VFR in a left downwind after departing Runway XXR.  Aircraft Y was on a Visual Approach and cleared to land on XXL. Aircraft X was VFR orbiting 4 miles east of ZZZ. When Aircraft Y was about 6 mile final at about 1;500 ft Aircraft X was about 1 mile south of ZZZ still in the downwind. Aircraft X then decided to cross over final at 1;500 ft in front of Aircraft Y who at the time was at 1;300 ft.  Aircraft X did not give a reason or a traffic insight call. I Local Controller (LC) immediately issued traffic to Aircraft X about Aircraft Y by saying 'turn left immediately for final traffic at 1;300 ft type aircraft.' I don't believe I got a response. By that time he was clear of Aircraft Y and headed straight towards Aircraft Z. This time I informed Aircraft X to turn left heading 360 immediately to avoid the traffic. Again no response. I issued traffic to both aircraft until Aircraft Z reported the Aircraft X in sight and it was no longer a factor. I terminated control of Aircraft X at the edge of the Class Delta east of the field. Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z landed with no further incident.Aircraft X should have informed me of his intentions much sooner. The reason he was LDW [Left Downwind] instead of RDW [Right Downwind] was because of Aircraft Z to the East and IFR final traffic inbound. There should be a set procedure to remove conflict with IFR Air Carrier traffic.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported an NMAC due to an aircraft turning in front of an arrival.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Cargo] booked ZZZ-ZZZZ-ZZZZ1. No docs [received] in ZZZZ. Cargo booked on [Date]. Incoming flight [prior flight] does not show any DGR [dangerous goods] on loading in [software program]. Mail to ZZZ request all docs. Docs [received] by mail [Date] without DGR check sheet. Mail to ZZZ request DGR check sheet on [next day]. All docs now [received] by mail and shows DGR / RCM [corrosive]. Cargo rebooked on [future flight].




Synopsis: Airline Safety Officer at enroute stop reported no Dangerous Goods [DG] documents received with DG cargo onboard.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 8
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Mooney Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Contacted ground for taxi to takeoff. After run up cleared for takeoff. Just after liftoff the engine started to run very rough. Pushed over to maintain gliding speed and flared with a successful touch down on the remaining runway. After clearing the active runway the engine shut down. Switched tanks and was able to restart the engine and taxied to the ramp.




Synopsis: Mooney M20 pilot reported landing on remaining runway after the engine began running rough shortly after takeoff. Engine ran normally on the ground after switching fuel tanks.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for the ILS for Runway XXR in ZZZ. ZZZ at the time was CAT II minimums showing 3/4 mile visibly and 300 feet ceilings. We started getting a LOC flag prior to final approach fix. We broke off the approach and executed a missed approach. Knowing that there are many variables as to why we would not be getting reliable LOC information we elected to try a CAT II again but to a different runway. We go set up again for the ILS for Runway XXR. While intercepting we received a LOC flag again about 18 DME from the LOC. Again knowing that there are many variables that go into receiving a good signal we decided to give it a few more miles. We caught the LOC and GS and executed a CAT II to a landing. The only thing I can think that was improper about this circumstance was the continuation of a CAT II after receiving a LOC flag. It's being 18 miles out I believe we were in some gray area. At any rate we wrote up the LOC on the aircraft so that it could be ruled out as the cause. Perhaps the LOC on Runway XXR was not strong enough or there was interference from the proceeding aircraft causing the localizer. Or it was the aircraft itself. I think we did most everything right. It just felt weird to write up the LOC after a successful CAT II approach. I didn't see any reason we shouldn't try the CAT II we had plenty of fuel and had an alternate already specified.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported continuing with a Category II approach after receiving the LOC flag indication prior to localizer and glideslope intercept.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Fume event 'dirty sock smell' during descent. At approximately 22;000 ft. we started to smell the typical sock odor. We queried the cabin crew and they reported smelling the odor as well. They also reported the smell as strong and limited to the forward cabin. Odor in the cockpit was light but evident. We did not don masks as the dissipating of the smell started at about 4 minutes. By the time we landed the Captain had a slight headache and light-headedness. Symptoms went away after 30 minutes. FO (First Officer) was pilot flying.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a fume event during descent characterized as a temporary dirty socks odor. After a safe landing Captain reported physiological symptoms.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZKC.ARTCC, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were in cruise at FL370 when given a descent to FL190 and to cross RBA at or below FL230. Earlier; we had been given a crossing restriction at RBA of FL240; and when entered saw an inverse video CLB (cyan) above the altitude of FL240 on the right side of the FMS screen. When the crossing restriction was changed to FL230B; the CLB annunciation remained. We discussed this; found it very curious; but continued. As I began the descent into MCI; I utilized the profile mode of the MFD to assure compliance with the crossing restriction. It displayed that I would easily meet the requirements of the crossing restrictions. As we got closer; we were involved with the set up and the briefing of the approach and the in range call. I kept the descent as displayed on the profile view in my scan; but then realized about three miles Northwest of RBA that I was too high. It wasn't even close! I was at FL280; missing by about 5;000 FT. Again; the profile view depicted completely contradictory information. The Controller was very understanding and said the restriction was not really critical; but my concern is that if this happens in a dense traffic area it is a problem. I'm not sure why our Honeywell FMS is displaying such contradictory information; but it disturbs me.Greater pressure needs to be put on Honeywell to provide better programming of their equipment. This isn't new; these bugs need to be a thing of the past. The advantages of this technology are lost if we HAVE to rely on CAMI procedures so heavily. The purpose is defeated. It needs to work as advertised; and after this many years; Honeywell needs to have their act together. It isn't. The profile view; upon which we rely to be VNAV capable; has to give us reliable information. My scan was acceptable; the information was not.




Synopsis: An ERJ-190 Captain advised his FMS 'Profile Mode' display failed to properly display a programmed crossing restriction showing them to be on profile when they were; in fact; about 5;000 FT high.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BJC.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D BJC
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I just took transfer for Local Control. Aircraft X was a full stop on their roll out on and were instructed to exit which was read back and the pilot exited. The pilot was then instructed to continue; turn left and hold short of a runway which was also read back. The hold short instruction was given due to another aircraft; Aircraft Y; who was about to touch down. Aircraft X was observed crossing the hold short line and continued across the runway. I tried to communicate to them about stopping immediately but was too late. Meanwhile Aircraft Y was airborne; between 100-150 feet and was flying over the runway intersection simultaneously. A direct overflight did not occur; but it was very close. Aircraft X was told about the hold short instruction and then issued a Brasher Warning.This occurred directly after I took over the position; although traffic was not complex or heavy having to adjust the position to my needs may have been a contributing factor to not seeing the incident sooner. Maintaining vigilance even during slow times is my personal recommendation.


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


Synopsis: BJC Tower Controller and a GA pilot reported a runway incursion during taxi.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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 New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: Our Letter of Agreement (LOA) with PHX tower says that turboprop aircraft east flow are assigned a 050 heading climbing to 050. They must give miles in trail with northbound jets following; with the exception of one northbound SID. The LALUZ departure is runway heading to 4 miles east of the airport then turns left to approximately a 050 heading to fly to FORPE intersection. The problem is that departure loses divergence within 4 miles of the aircraft departing with turboprop aircraft assigned a 050 heading. Again there is no restriction for in trail spacing with a turboprop assigned a 050 heading and a turbojet on the LALUZ. What happened specifically here and is normally the case is that the turboprop departed from runway 7R; soon as he crossed the runway 7L they departed the [jet] on the LALUZ departure. At 4 miles from the airport the [jet] turned left to continue the departure but the turboprop was not yet out of 040 to make a left turn due to the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA). Basically our procedures caused this. I have elevated this procedure for the last 2 years and nothing internally ever changes.I recommend to fix this problem the tower has to give miles in trail with a turboprop ahead of any jet including the LALUZ departure. I don't understand how everyone at this building can know that this procedure sets the controller up to have an Operational Error (OE) but nothing will be done. I mentioned this to our Operations Manager just last week and he said he didn't see the problem with us having to fix the deal from happening. Our facility has never had a safety culture and this is a great example. I plan to write many more reports on this until it is fixed.




Synopsis: P50 TRACON Controller reported receiving a jet departure on a conflicting route overtaking a turboprop departure from the Tower which was permitted according to current facility directives.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Rain; 1.5
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While executing an ILS approach I experienced windshear on short final. I noticed a decrease in airspeed; loss of altitude and received a low altitude alert from the Tower Controller. I increased power and leveled off to stop the descent and increase my airspeed. Looking straight down I was able to determine I was over the runway but not in a position to land. I initiated the missed approach and started a climb as per the missed approach clearance. I may have descended below the decision altitude for the approach. While being careful not to fixate on the airspeed indicator I should have noticed the loss in airspeed sooner; this would have prevented any loss of altitude. I have also raised my personal minimums by 300 feet over what is specified in the terminal procedures.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot experiences windshear during an ILS approach resulting in a loss of airspeed; descent below the glideslope and possible descent below minimums. ATC issues a low altitude alert and a missed approach is initiated after first leveling off at low altitude with the runway not clearly visible.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MVY.Airport, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MVY
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The ramp at MVY is divided between an airline area and general aviation by a red line containing 'TSA-do not cross' or something similar to that. Unfamiliar with this demarcation; the pilot inadvertently crossed the line for a short distance. To prevent the situation; pilots should be familiar with ramp markings. However; this marking is not contained in [FAA Publication TC11-0020] so it would be good to include it in the next edition. A further suggestion is that Ground Control mention this situation to aircraft taxiing to the general aviation area.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported inadvertently crossing over the red TSA security boundary line during taxi.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were at cruise at FL380. We noticed that we had an OFF flag on the First Officer's Flight Director. We were in the process of doing the checklist when we started noticing an unusual odor in the cockpit. We made a call to the Lead Flight Attendant and ask if there was any unusual odors from in the cabin and she said there was through out the cabin. The odor was getting stronger and we could not determine what it was. We ran the Smoke and Fumes Removal Checklist and decided to divert. The smell seemed to come and go through out the remainder of the flight. A normal landing was made and taxied to the gate.


Second narrative: [Report contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B757 First Officer's Flight Directer OFF flap appeared at about the same time as an electrical odor was detected in both the flight station and cabin so the flight diverted to a nearby airport for a normal landing.