elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Fatigue; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the Arrival. [Approach] assigned us the FMS VISUAL. As the Pilot Managing (PM); I loaded the approach into the FMC. The First Officer (FO) verified it and I executed it. After [a] waypoint; the aircraft stayed on a 240-degree course (in LNAV). ATC brought this to our attention.As a crew; we discussed this after we landed and we still do not understand where we made a programming error. There are a few factors that contributed to me not intervening and manually putting the aircraft on the correct course immediately; and they are; we were both tired; day three of a four-day trip; and it was the last leg. Another factor; I briefed my FO at the beginning of the day to remember we do not have autothrottles. We were in an older model aircraft! It is my personal observation that comfort to autothrottles is a growing issue; especially when it gets busy on the flightdeck. On this leg; I had to remind the FO a few times about not having autothrottles and that we were getting slow. In fact; I had to intervene twice and adjust the throttles myself. My final factor was that my headset broke on day two. It would not transmit. I used the headset for receiving and the hand MIC for transmitting. This increased my workload.




Synopsis: A B-737 flight crew; on approach; failed to detect that their aircraft; while in LNAV; took up a heading instead of sequencing to the next waypoint on the arrival. The Captain thinks there may have been a programming error. He attributes the failure to detect was due to the crew's fatigue caused by high workload.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PTKK.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: PTKK airport has a NOTAM saying PAPI activated many months ago. I have flown this pairing several times in the last 10 days and each time; the PAPI has been inop. I have advised operations each time that the PAPI is inop. They say they will get it fixed or [issue a] NOTAM that it's inop. Neither has occurred. This is a night approach to a 'black hole' airport with a non-precision approach and in my opinion an operating PAPI is important. If it's not operational; it should have a NOTAM alerting the crew that it is inop; so they can plan accordingly. As a side note; on the flight last night from ZZZ to PTKK; when we activated the runway lights on CTAF; the PAPI came on for 2 seconds with the runway lights then went out for the remainder of the landing time. Then on the return flight ZZZ to PTKK; the PAPI didn't even come on for any amount of time.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that the PAPI system is inoperative at PTKK; however; a NOTAM was issued that the system is operative.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During cruise; Captain reported feeling unwell and transferred flight controls to the First Officer (FO). FO suggested he drink some water and checked the pressurization; trying to determine the cause. Soon after; ATC began descending the flight for arrival into [destination airport]. FO flew down and Captain; although still responsive; was unable to perform duties as pilot monitoring. Due to task saturation; the plane flew through the final approach course while still descending to the assigned altitude. FO disengaged autopilot and attempted to rejoin the approach; but due to the state of the aircraft and a cloud layer covering the field; decided to level off re-engage the auto pilot and ask for vectors around to rejoin the approach. While being vectored FO asked the Captain if he would be able to taxi upon landing to which he responded yes. The approach and landing were completed and passengers were deplaned with the flight deck door closed. During deplaning; Dispatch was called to inform them of the situation and request medical assistance for the Captain. The event began when the captain first verbalized he was not feeling well. FO's reaction was to take control of the aircraft and perform the descent approach and landing getting the Captain to medical personnel as quickly as safety allowed. The Captain asked that a medical emergency not be declared. FO could have declared an emergency regardless of Captains request. Also; FO could have asked for vectors on the descent rather than trying to rush down in a high workload situation.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported the Captain had become ill enroute forcing the First Officer to conduct all of the flight deck duties alone for the remainder of the flight.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: ZZZ
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying LADYJ 2 RNAV Departure in VNAV; we allowed aircraft to accelerate to climb speed at 10;000 ft instead of adhering to 250 knot restriction until notified by ATC. Passing approximately 12;000 ft; SoCal notified us of the airspeed deviation. We pre-briefed the departure and were prepared to comply with the airspeed restriction. As a technique; I will manually place 250 in the 10;000 ft climb to protect airspeed restriction or manually select Level Change; such as XXX restrictions. I failed to do so this night due to distractions and attempts to get our 'push' clearance. Also; I had expanded the departure page diagram to better see the page at night which actually hid the departure airspeed restriction resulting in a 296 KIAS climb above 10;000 ft.This was nothing more than a typical human factors error. I was distracted out of my habit pattern as we neared our push time waiting for the numbers and excess traffic which occurs around our LAX gates. Also; lack of recent flying departures to the north may have caused me to mentally blank the restriction even after I briefed it during preflight. Can the FMC be programmed to comply with such airspeed restrictions as a backup whereby we would be able to select ECON when cleared by ATC? It is a published restriction.


Second narrative: We were flying the LADYJ 2 RNAV Departure out of LAX. It has a speed restriction of 'MAINTAIN AT OR BELOW 250 KNOTS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY ATC.' I had the LADYJ 2 Departure displayed on my EFB but had the view expanded where the speed restriction was not in view. VNAV was selected passing 3000 ft AGL so after passing 10;000 ft MSL; the aircraft accelerated to normal climb speed. When ATC gave us a frequency change they advised us that in the future maintain 250 knots until assigned normal speed.


Synopsis: B737 Captain and First Officer reported exceeding a speed restriction on departure after reconfiguring their EFB display and inadvertently hiding the published airspeed restriction from view.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Parked pre-departure
Aircraft component: Fuel Quantity-Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On previous flight same aircraft; totalizer showed over fueled but truck pumped 53 gallons less than calculated. On this flight; totalizer showed over fueled by 100 pounds.  Truck pumped 30 gallons less than calculated. Discrepancy between truck amount and totalizer amount was 45 gallons. Flight Operations Manual (FOM) procedures are a bit unclear.  In all cases the alternative method (sticking the tank) has yielded another value which does not agree with either truck or totalizer.  What is the procedure in such a case?




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reports discrepancies between the amount of fuel pumped by the fuel truck and the amount shown on the aircraft totalizer. He believes that the Flight Operations Manual procedures are unclear in this situation and requests guidance.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ILM.Airport, NC
Weather elements / visibility: Sky Clear
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ILM
ATC / advisory: Tower ILM
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After lift off on Runway 35 at ILM ; we started getting unreliable RA readings. As we approached the departure end of the Runway; 'CAUTION terrain' GPWS popped up. I pitched for 20 degrees and verified we were maintaining a positive a rate of climb. We had a light Aircraft weight that day and took off half way down the Runway so I was confident we were above any obstacles. Once we were through about 500 ft. the RA altimeter was working appropriately. As a precaution I notified ATC of 'possible' 5g interference. Dispatch was notified as well. Upon evaluating the remainder of the flight there were no issues with the approach and landing phase. I did not feel a need for a write up on the RA alt. I was aware there were no 5g NOTAMS in ILM but never had issues with the RA before that produced a GPWS caution alert before so I covered all the bases for safety.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported radio altimeter anomalies climbing out of ILM; citing 5G interference as the possible cause of the event.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: M-20 B/C Ranger
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: SVFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
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: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A Mooney noting low clouds and not wanting to violate VFR cloud clearance; requested a SVFR clearance out of the Class C Airspace. Ground Control 2 gave the aircraft a SVFR clearance. Local Control 2 requested a SVFR release from Local Control 1 who held the release pending airspace availability. A few minutes later; the FLM in the south Tower told Local Control 2 to make the Mooney fly VFR. So the pilot did depart VFR and came much closer than the VFR required 500 FT separation from the low clouds in the area. The FLM should be instructed on cloud clearance requirements between VFR flight and SVFR flight.




Synopsis: Tower Controller voiced concern regarding Supervisory instructions not to issue a SFVR clearance when the airport was above VFR minima even though cloud clearance was apparently a factor.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HIO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D HIO
ATC / advisory: Tower HIO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X departed VFR. Shortly after take-off the pilot advised local of a gear malfunction/issue. Aircraft X performed a low approach over the runway and we observed the pilot side of the gear retracted while the co-pilot gear appeared down.  Aircraft X circled the airspace for a few minutes until the fire brigade arrived at the airport. Aircraft X landed and came to a stop/disabled at [runways] intersection. No injuries; unknown damage; pilot was sole occupant; 3 hours of fuel.  I contacted one of the airport's FBO who dispatched a crew to assist the aircraft. My shift ended prior to the aircraft being removed from the Runway.Everything went smooth except for the phone calls from the Service desk.




Synopsis: Aircraft landed with left main gear retracted. This was a known malfunction.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On arrival into the Chicago area via the FISSK 3; ATC told us to expect radar vectors for the RNAV Y to 13C. ATC eventually descended us to 3;000 feet before handing us off to the Final Controller. 3;000 feet is below the mandatory altitude of 4;000 feet at OOPLA. Approaching TINLY; we were cleared the RNAV Y 13C. Inside of TINLY; ATC asked if we needed to climb to meet the 4;000 feet 'mandatory' altitude at OOPLA. They indicated they weren't sure either as this was a non-normal approach for MDW. We were VMC; close to OOPLA; and declined. We continued to fly the track and intercepted the profile to an uneventful landing. We complied with all ATC's instructions on the arrival. In order for the RNAV approaches to work as advertised; ATC; the aircraft; and the Crew need to be on the same sheet of music; IMC or VMC. Any deviations from the script to accommodate traffic flow can cause potential issues.


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


Synopsis: A flight crew flying the MDW RNAV (RNP) RWY 13C were previously cleared to 3;000 feet on the FISSK 3 RNAV Arrival which put them below the mandatory 4;000 feet at OOPLA on the approach.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower STS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Sector 40/41 combined with no D-side. There was IFR weather throughout the sector with an approaching front. The weather at Santa Rosa was low IFR with several aircraft going missed. Indefinite ceiling of 200. Traffic was routine for the time of day and weather. Equipment was working normally. Aircraft X was performing an IFR flight to STS attempted to execute the GPS 32 Approach at STS. The approach was normal; until I noticed the aircraft approximately 4 miles from the airport at 500 feet. The airport elevation is 128 feet. I know from experience that that altitude is way too low to be at that position. I called STS Tower and told them to issue a low altitude alert. Shortly thereafter the Tower told the pilot to start the missed approach because the aircraft continued to descend; below the minimums for the approach. The pilot came back on my frequency and I told her that she was 4 miles away and 500 feet. She said that she never saw the ground; and added that she wasn't receiving vertical guidance on the approach. The lowest the aircraft went on the approach was 300 feet. I'm not sure how accurate that is; though. I know that on a non-precision approach; after the FAF; the pilot can descend rapidly to the missed approach altitude in order to attempt to see the runway. I feel like this event was unsafe though and that's why I'm submitting the report. On ERAM [En-route Automation Modernization]; the MSAW [Minimum Safe Altitude Warning] has parameters that inhibits MSAW alerts when the aircraft is a certain distance from the destination airport. The only suggestion that I can make right now is to adapt the technology that terminal facilities/STARS has and I believe that is if the aircraft exceeds a vertical rate of decent on the approach; the MSAW alerts as well. I feel like that would be a useful tool.




Synopsis: Oakland Center Controller reported an aircraft descended below the minimums on the approach to STS; resulting in a Low Altitude Alert.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MCC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E MCC
ATC / advisory: Tower MCC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying into McClellan Field (KMCC) I was using the CTAF. I was unaware that the tower had been activated. I thought that the other planes in the area were not talking to me. I got no responses while broadcasting my positions and intentions as is my habit at non-towered airports. After fueling my plane I taxied back for takeoff. While climbing on downwind a call came out that the airplane that just took off was not talking. I was informed this morning that the tower had been activated. There is a strong possibility that I was on the wrong frequency. The flight to KMCC is [close] so I didn't check KMCC for weather. The only place that I have found the tower frequency is on the AWOS at KMCC. My [charts are] up to date and indicates only the CTAF frequency.




Synopsis: A local pilot did not check for NOTAMs and assumed that other aircraft were not using the CTAF frequency. He later discovered that a temporary tower had been opened due to heavy fire fighting activity in the area.