elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: King Air 100 A/B
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: T6A Texan II / Harvard II (Raytheon)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was providing OJTI on East/West RADAR combined. A King Air was inbound at 3;000 on a vector to follow a Military Texan trainer. The trainee is very poor in sequencing and scanning but has used most of his/her training time in the TRACON so I wasn't saying much to him; but simply monitoring. Initially the trainee had the King Air on a 210 heading for a base of some sort. He should have been number one to the airport. The Texan was on the opposite downwind. The trainee then based the Texan (050 heading). I believe he realized that the King Air's 210 heading was no good so he went to a 230 heading. I knew what he was trying to do. He was trying to widen the King Air out to go behind the Texan but the 230 heading put them nose to nose about 8 miles apart (230 heading/050 heading). I still didn't say anything to him because I wanted him to 'work it out' on his own since he's so far into training. He still had vertical separation. The King Air then called the airport in sight. After a brief pause; he cleared the King Air for a Visual Approach. These aircraft were head on; 5 miles apart; and had 400 KTS of closure between them. I immediately keyed up and told the King Air to maintain 3;000 for traffic. I believe he didn't answer the initial call so I did it again. He stopped his descent at approximately 2;600 FT. I'm pretty sure I had less than 3 miles and 1;000 FT on converging courses. The King Air climbed back to 3;000 FT before being re-cleared for the visual. No RA's involved and the CA did not activate. I really don't know of anything else I could have done with this particular trainee/situation. I guess from now on he will just have to parrot me while he's training. At 75% of his hours he is horrible and is allowed to continue training. There is not a training session that goes by that a trainer watching him does not have to key the mike to save an imminent situation. I'm really not sure what to do with this kid. There are NO signs of improvement and management continues to try and force him through.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller providing OJT described a probable loss of separation event when the trainee was late in correcting a head on situation; the reporter indicating the student lacks the ability to certify but continues in the training program because of management pressure.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Cargo/Baggage
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the cargo pre-flight I walked the main deck and arrived in the aft of the aircraft as the ground crew was closing the cargo door and flipping up pallet locks in the empty positions. I began to study one pallet a few positions forward from the tail on the right side. There was an empty position immediately aft of this pallet. Some cargo on this pallet had collapsed and was retained by the cargo net on the left side of the pallet. I inquired about the cargo and the ground crew assured me it was ok and they would add additional straps just to be safe. I then asked about the hazmat I had seen during my walk through and followed some ground crew members forward. After the flight I was informed by the Captain that this same pallet had shifted during flight and possibly damaged some cargo. Thinking back on my pre-flight I cannot recall looking at the aft locks of this pallet. I believe I allowed the condition of the pallet and subsequent conversation with ground crew to distract me from my normal duties. This was a reminder of how important attention to detail can be and how it takes extra diligence when confronted with non-normal conditions.


Second narrative: A cargo pallet [had] shifted one position rearward on takeoff due to aft locks not in the up and locked position. With all cargo doors closed and prior to departure; the First Officer performed his cargo inspection; was briefed on cargo loading and location of Haz-Mat. Soon there after; the flight developed a Maintenance delay requiring analysis from Maintenance Engineering. As we waited; I noticed from the top of the stairs (flight deck); three loading personnel entering at the L1 and walk to the rear. I asked the Supervisor Load Master sitting nearby what they were doing and he responded he did not know (shrugged) and did not display any concern. I then returned to my task of requesting addition fuel due to APU burn. Upon arrival; as I was leaving the aircraft (others were already off); the head Load Personnel advised me of a cargo shift and I went with him to the position to inspect and get information.


Synopsis: A pallet shifted during takeoff and landing on a B747; causing cargo damage.  It was found that aft pallet locks were not properly set.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to level off at FL360 the cabin altitude warning light illuminated with aural warning and the cabin was climbing. We donned our masks; complied with the QRH and initiated an emergency descent. We then declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby airport.The First Officer did an outstanding job. The flight attendants all knew what was happening during the descent; did a great job and prepared the cabin for landing; all were well ahead of the situation. Maintenance met us at the gate and determined the problem was the pressure controller.The aircraft had been dispatched with only one operational pressure control system.




Synopsis: After experiencing a pressurization failure as they approached cruise altitude the flight crew of an MD-82 initiated an emergency descent; performed the associated QRH procedures and ultimately diverted to a nearby airport. The flight had been dispatched with only a one of two pressurization system operational.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
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
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared for a visual approach at ZZZ. We selected LNAV and began to configure for the approach. The weather was VMC and we were easily going to be within stabilized criteria. Approaching [FAF]; the First Officer (FO) directed landing gear down and flaps 15. At that point; Tower advised us of our closure with Company ahead; that another Company would be departing before us; asked us to slow to final approach speed; and pointed out traffic out of [a nearby airport]. The FO directed me to set target [speed]. As I brought my attention back inside; I noticed we were low on glideslope and slightly fast. We made the 1000 feet call; I made deviation calls; unfortunately (because of outside distractions) we both missed configuring to flaps 30 and completing the Before Landing Checklist. At 500 feet; we received a 'Too Low Flaps' warning. I directed a go-around. We executed the go-around and came back around for an uneventful approach and landing.As Pilot Monitoring; I needed to spend more time inside the cockpit ensuring compliance of procedures. The Pilot Flying needed to concentrate more on the task at hand and not let outside factors distract his attention. Don't let outside distractions divert attention during critical phases of flight.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew executed a go-around after forgetting to set final flaps and complete the Before Landing Checklist due to attention outside the cockpit on ATC reported traffic concerns.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We detected an acrid electrical odor. Turned off interior master switch and went back to the cabin to try and determine where odor could be coming from. We ran the electrical fire or fumes QRH and by then the odor dissipated. By the time all of this was done we decided it would be best to continue to [the] planned destination and landed without incident.


Second narrative: Event Details: Leveling off at cruise altitude of 30;000'; we smelled an electrical fire. No smoke. The passenger came up to report the smell at the same time. We determined that the smell was coming from the passenger cabin and as per the checklist we turned off the interior master switch. The SIC went to the cabin and the smell dissipated within a minute. We elected to continue to destination as it was only a few minutes longer than descending to ZZZ1. We landed without any issues and then smell came back.


Synopsis: CE-560XLS flight crew reported cabin fume event that dissipated after completion of QRH procedure. Flight completed uneventful landing at destination.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Fog; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On a VFR flight with intentions to land at ZZZ; aircraft was en-route using VFR flight following. Pilot was notified by ATC of below minimum conditions at ZZZ. Pilot stated that his intentions were to overfly and verify conditions to determine if conditions had improved in order to land. En-route weather received through foreflight application with stratus antenna was reporting current conditions to be Marginal VFR with 3SM visibility. Pilot observed greater than 3sm visibility overflying the field. Pilot cancelled VFR flight following and proceeded to land observing greater than 4 SM visibility using GPS instrument. Pilot had checked multiple weather sources before departure and inflight; including calling the ASOS number; and observing the TAF. Weather was improving continually. Alternate airports considerations had been made. Pilot was also monitoring the CTAF at ZZZ. Pilot contends that a safe and legal approach and landing was performed. Pilot had been contacted by FAA Aviation Safety Inspector within hours of landing and was questioned in regards to conditions.




Synopsis: BE36 pilot reports landing at an uncontrolled airport with the AWOS reporting marginal VFR and 3 SM visibility. He believes the visibility was greater than 4 SM but was contacted by an FAA Safety Inspector regarding the legality of the landing.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DKB.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were doing flight training on ground reference maneuvers 8 to 9 NM northwest of DKB. There was traffic 3 to 4 NM southwest of our position and the traffic was 1000 ft plus above and maneuvering west and east bound. When we came back from a westbound left turn to northbound I noticed on my ForeFlight that traffic was to our east very very close to us and at about same altitude. Since most of my view was blocked by the right wing; I decided to descend and dodge to the northwest; and [at] about [the] same moment I saw the Cessna at my 2 o'clock on westbound and slightly higher above us. A second or two later the Cessna saw us and started a right climb turn.




Synopsis: Cessna Flight Instructor reported an NMAC with another light aircraft in the vicinity of DKB airport.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was reporting for duty and my Front Line Manager (FLM) asked me to watch a video replay that did not have any sound of this 'incident'. I am now assuming that it is a 'wake turbulence remnants event' but that is an assumption! I was just taking over the Departure 3 position and DFW Tower had advised that Aircraft X would be on a vector since he could not make the crossing restrictions on the SID. So I was getting a new chair and putting in my preference settings while Aircraft X flew 2-3 extra miles before I turned him to ensure that he would be above satellite traffic. Aircraft Y was on the SID on the inside track. On the replay it looks like Aircraft X is 5 miles NNW of Aircraft Y's westbound flight and Aircraft Y is at 8800 MSL while Aircraft X is well out of 10;000 MSL. It seems that when Aircraft X crossed the point where Aircraft Y is at he was at 9800 MSL. What the heck is 'WAKE TURBULENCE REMNANTS'? Where is it defined and why is it not in the 7110.65? Trying to determine where and what it is on a radar screen in real time is like trying to determine if a plane farts who will smell it! Until controllers are giving the tools to know what wake turbulence remnants are quit wasting our time making us fill out reports. Who goes through replays and what tools do they use to determine something that is undefined? Is the reason that I'm filling out this report so that somebody can say 'there was a report filed so everything's fine and let's move on?' What does that solve?




Synopsis: D10 TRACON Controller reported a Wake Turbulence Remnant issue that Front Line Manager brought to his attention after the fact. Controller reported to work; Front Line Manager had him review a replay and was told that there was a wake remnant issue. Controller wanted to know what a wake remnant issue was since nothing was in the FAA Order 7110.65.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DCA.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PCT
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC; TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Folks; pilots should not accept a change of altitude clearance without being given an altitude to climb or descend to. Put differently: a change of altitude clearance should not be given to a pilot to 'climb or descend now'...and ATC will tell you later what altitude to level off at. This is; however; exactly what happens when Washington Center clears a pilot to 'Descend Via the TRUPS Arrival' without designating whether it is a north or south landing in DCA due to the fact there are different [runway] transition [bottom] altitudes established (6;000 landing north vice 8;000 landing south) on the TRUPS RNAV arrival. I received this 'Descend Via' clearance far enough from DCA that ATIS was not available--although ACARS was. Regardless; not being assigned a transition is the same thing as not being assigned an altitude when different transition [bottom] altitudes exist. In this case; I did not accept the 'Descend Via Clearance' until Potomac Approach issued the transition; therefore designating the 'Cleared to Altitude.'  In contrast; when an aircraft landing Charlotte is given a 'Descend Via the Ivane' by Atlanta Center; if the pilot does not state the landing runway to Charlotte Approach on initial call they will not accept the initial call and will require the pilot to repeat the Descend Via Clearance stating the transition (runway). This in fact makes good sense.  Pilots are trained to select a (cleared to/hard) altitude on their associated flight computers; and that altitude represents their clearance. Although I am not a human factors expert; if the role of the 'Altitude Select Window' on a transport category aircraft is altered; a large spike in altitude deviations in all phases of flight is likely. Bottom line: Descend or Climb Via Clearances should [identify the runway of intended landing] when different transition altitudes are specified in the procedure.




Synopsis: An A319 Captain took exception to 'descend via' clearances that do not specify a specific altitude and/or landing runway/direction when a procedure--such as the TRUPS RNAV STAR to DCA--has different 'bottom' altitudes depending on landing direction or runway.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: COS.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C COS
ATC / advisory: TRACON COS; Tower COS
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On takeoff from COS we were delayed due to several training aircraft in the pattern. Shortly after takeoff from 35R tower said there was an aircraft in front of us and switched us to departure. Departure then informs us that there is traffic in front of us and turning to a 360 degree heading. We did not have the aircraft in sight. I mentioned to the First Officer; who was flying; that the aircraft was not in sight though showing at our altitude as we climbed. The TCAS showed 100 ft below us and slightly left when we received the RA to climb. The FO disconnected the autopilot to comply with the RA.ATC launched us into single engine slower traffic which we overtook quickly on takeoff. ATC made no effort to separate converging aircraft. Keep smaller single engine aircraft out of our departure path.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a TCAS RA departing COS caused by a GA aircraft that had departed just before. COS Tower was controlling both aircraft initially.