elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class A ZAB; Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZAB over delivered yet again today by giving us 17 jets and 5 props between [15 minute period] while the prior period had 13 jets and 2 props and the period after had 9 jets and 1 prop.  They over delivered again today between [one hour and fifteen minutes later] by giving us 17 jets and 3 props while the prior period had 14 jets and 1 prop and the period after had 8 jets and 0 props.Our CAPS [number agreed upon by TRACON and Center to be the maximum allowed] number is 18 per 15 minute period.ZAB forces ZLA to push the ACM [Adjacent Center Metering] numbers to the glass so they get a good delivery from them.  ZAB pushes the GIMS [Ground Based Interval Management-Spacing] numbers to the glass so they get a good delivery internally at ZAB.  ZAB refuses to push the numbers to the glass of the ZAB controllers that feed P50.  This results in a poor deliver of aircraft and an ongoing problem whereby they constantly over deliver day in and day out during the same time frames.ZAB also refuses to use the alternate route (deconflicted) regularly for turbo props.   Many times they just stack them underneath the jets while they are over delivering.TBFM may not be configured correctly.  However; it is hard to prove if they will not push to the glass.  ZAB38/39 also says that they have a stream of 7 that they have in the system but they still have to give us 8MIT.  Why?  Mostly likely because TBFM is not set correctly.  If set correctly; you should set your stream along with other parameters and then meet the times on the glass.ZAB needs a procedural change whereby they push the numbers to the glass all the time. NATCA and management from each facility should meet to ensure that TBFM is set up correctly with what P50 needs.




Synopsis: P50 Controller reports of ZAB over delivering aircraft and questions if TBFM [Time Based Flow Management] tool is set correctly.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ICT.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ICT
ATC / advisory: Tower ICT
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Wichita Approach requested best rate of speed from me prior to handing me to Tower on the visual approach to 19R; and I complied with a forward speed around 150 knots. They handed me off to Tower; and as I reached about a 3 mile right base for 19R; Tower asked if I saw [another light single] turning 3 mile final to the same runway. I did see [him] and reported it to Tower. I then slowed to match the [other aircraft's] speed; which was much slower than mine. As I reached my turn to final I lost sight of [him] on my right due to my airplane's nose. At that moment I got a TIS (Traffic Information Services) Alert showing an airplane 300 feet under mine; directly underneath. Fearing a possible collision as well as mismatched speeds with the [other aircraft] now on final; I visually cleared the area to my left and executed a 360 turn. I advised Tower of my 360 turn for spacing. Tower then told me to re-enter right base for 19R; my landing clearance was not canceled; and no further spacing problems occurred.




Synopsis: C208 pilot reported an NMAC with another light single on approach to ICT when he lost sight of slower traffic he was following.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ELP.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ELP
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff Runway 22 at ELP. At V1 speed we saw a single engine Cessna at 50 feet out our front left window turning and descending. We elected to keep the aircraft on the ground to let the Cessna go overhead and then we climbed out at V1 plus 40 KTS. This can be avoided by not giving any aircraft the option to touch and go; they should be made to make a full stop landing and the Controller should have let us wait until the Cessna was out of the way.


Second narrative: I was pilot flying during takeoff; Runway 22 at ELP. As I started to rotate; the Captain called out traffic slightly above and to our left. I saw the single engine Cessna in a right turn towards north which looked as if it would cross our path; creating a risk of collision. I momentarily stopped/reduced rate of rotation as the safest alternative to getting airborne and climbing into the conflicting traffic. Once judging [we were] clear of the conflict; rotation and climb out continued safely.


Synopsis: MD80 flight crew departing Runway 22 at ELP reports a potential airborne conflict with a single engine Cessna; maneuvering at low altitude just to the south of Runway 22. The rotation is delayed until the Cessna has passed behind.
Date: 202111
Aircraft: PC-12
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; 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: Ambiguous

Narrative: En route to MAP on non-precision RNAV for Runway 6. Received a terrain call out from aircraft and executed missed approach. Re-joined approach and achieved successful landing with no abnormal indications




Synopsis: Pilot reported receiving a terrain warning and then executing a missed approach.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D STP
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While being vectored for the ILS at ZZZ we received several Terrain Terrain pull up! Commands. We were at 2;500 ft. abeam ZZZ on a right downwind leg the autopilot was engaged at the time of the first warning. The autopilot was disengaged and I began an immediate climb and the Captain notified ZZZ approach of the terrain warning. We climbed to 3;500 ft. to silence the warning. ATC cleared us back down to 2;500 ft. after assuring us that minimum vectoring alt was well below us and there was no terrain to justify a terrain warning between us and the airport. After intercepting the localizer we continued to get the terrain warning The controller also heard the warning when he told us to switch the radio frequency to advisory's. We asked the Controller if we maintained IFR separation and he said that we did maintain it. The approach and landing continued normally.




Synopsis: Challenger 300 flight crew reported terrain warning alert while being vectored for landing.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-83
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: High oil temp indication on left engine after takeoff.  Followed appropriate checklists and procedures. Returned for uneventful landing. Shut down left engine in flight.




Synopsis: MD-83 Captain reported returning to departure airport after high oil temperature on the left engine led to an inflight shutdown.
Date: 201912
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After Flight Attendant called up letting us know passenger in seat X was on O2 and complaining of chest pains and shortness of breath. We notified the Captain while he was on rest. FO proceeded to call Medlink. Communicated with Medlink Doctor and Dispatch and decided to continue after all information on ill passenger was ascertained and latest update on passenger was that he was feeling better and off O2. Approximately 30 minutes later we were again notified from the Flight Attendants and now all cabin lights were on and the passenger had become very ill. They applied the AED to the passenger. He was also having a seizure. Captain returned to the Flight Deck and Medlink was then called again. Medlink Doctor was updated on passenger's decline and the recommendation was made to divert. Captain and Dispatcher agreed and ZZZZ was chosen for medical facilities. [We advised ATC] and ATC then cleared us direct to ZZZZ. Uneventful landing. Dispatch did a wonderful job coordinating our diversion to ZZZZ. Paramedics and Operations Personnel met the aircraft immediately after we parked.After passenger was seen by Paramedics; we as a crew briefed legality to operate the flight from ZZZZ to ZZZZ1. Captain had insufficient rest as he did not get the his required 2:00 hours of crew rest. He was interrupted about a hour in. Pilot monitoring First Officer did not get any rest. Not only did she not get her required 90 mins minimum rest; she never left the flight deck. Per FAR 117 we as a crew agreed that we were not legally and fit to fly the ZZZZ-ZZZZ1 leg.




Synopsis: First Officer reported a passenger illness causing a diversion which then led to the crew not having enough rest to continue flight.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After crossing BASYE at 8;000 ft; as cleared; approximately 10 miles prior to HAARP on the HAARP3 arrival into LGA; we were advised that a small aircraft would be crossing 500 ft below us from our 1 o'clock position. Both the FO and I identified it; first with TCAS; then visually. Shortly thereafter we were given a TCAS TA; followed by an RA about 5-10 seconds later. The RA instructions were to monitor vertical speed. Since we were in level flight and had been for a couple minutes; I elected to leave the autopilot engaged. The crossing traffic showed a slight climb and indicated at one point 400 ft separation. We kept visual contact with the aircraft and the TCAS system gave us a 'clear of conflict' aural after passing us. No further issues.


Second narrative: Leveled off at 8;000 on descent after passing BASYE into LGA. Approach advised us of VFR traffic 500 ft below our altitude crossing under our flight path. We spotted traffic about 10 miles out to our 1 o'clock position. TCAS RA announced to monitored vertical speed and showed not to descend on the VSI. Traffic did climb about 100 ft to leave about 400 ft of separation. 5-10 seconds later TCAS announced 'clear of conflict'.


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported a TCAS RA at 8;000 feet with an opposite direction small aircraft at 7;500 feet during approach to LGA airport. The RA instruction was to monitor vertical speed and since the aircraft was in level flight no action was taken.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There was a lot of weather in the northern part of the sector creating diverted/deviating flights causing high complexity. The sector was still receiving departures and inbounds to land along with the other enroute traffic that was deviating. Minutes from the boundary sectors are handing off arrivals that have been re-routed into my airspace which was covered up with weather. At the same time other sectors were also handing me off arrivals which had been re-routed.I called both sectors telling them I would take those but all others need to be descended to the lower sectors. I also notified my Supervisor that the airport arrivals should not enter my sector because it wasn't safe because they were in conflict with departures and arrivals that were deviating for weather. After a few minutes both adjacent ARTCC sectors started handing off more arrival aircraft completely not complying and the supervisor yelling at me 'you have to take those handoffs'. I advised them I was unable handoff and had 3 airspace violations during this session. I was relieved and went to TMU and the Operations Manager and asked why were the arrivals diverted that far north into my sector with the complexity already at high levels? Traffic Management Unit (TMU) and the Operations Manager responded that they didnt know about the aircraft routed into the sector and that they were supposed to be re-routed over a different fix. I asked why didn't that get done; thay didn't have an answer.There had been weather there all day moving easterly. Its always very poor planning and communication with ARTCC TMU with alternate plans and coordinating with other centers causing 'knee jerk' reactions that is very unsafe. They said arrivals were supposed to be re-routed; why didn't they make sure it got done? Why weren't they more aware of sector complexities that have weather? Why didn't my supervisor immediately communicate with TMU and ARTCC after I told her about the arrival traffic?




Synopsis: A Controller refused to take handoffs from adjacent sectors because the aircraft were supposed to be routed away from their sector due to weather deviations. Three aircraft entered the controller's airspace without the controller accepting the handoffs.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While flying in cruise as pilot monitoring the autopilot clicked off and the pilot flying corrected with power and we started to descend. I called ATC and requested FL350 and ATC approved new altitude of FL350.I would suggest better CRM.


Second narrative: In cruise at FL370 the autopilot disengaged and the shaker activated. I recovered per the pilot handbook and we coordinated a lower altitude with ATC.


Synopsis: At FL370 CRJ-900 autopilot disconnected; and when the stall warning activated the aircraft descended 300 FT during recovery. The flight crew request lower and continued at FL350.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the boarding process on Aircraft X from ZZZ to ZZZ1; I was working the AFT position. I noticed that the Passenger X seated in seat X4 had his mask down. He waited until he passed my flying partner to pull it down. He took his seat and was talking to a passenger across from him. Once I was done saying my 5 minute to door closing announcement I began walking to the front of the aircraft. Once I got to row X; [Passenger X] had his mask down under his chin. I told Passenger X he had to place his mask over his nose and mouth. He looked at me rolled his eyes and did a heavy sigh. I walked away and Passenger X began discussing the mask issue with the passenger seated across from him whom I learned was his friend who was original assigned to seat Y1; but decided to change his seat to seat X1 instead. Passenger Y had an oversized laptop in the back seat pocket and I told him that he had to stow it in a bag under the seat in front of him or in an overhead bin. He replied 'Yes; ma'am.' Once the doors were closed I began doing my compliment check passenger seated in X4; Passenger X had his mask down below his nose this time. I spoke to him once again. He wasn't happy about it so he rolled his eyes again at me and snatched the mask up over his nose and shrugged his shoulders. This was the second time Passenger X had to be reminded about his mask.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported a passenger was not compliant with face mask policy.