elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was a departure who was climbing VFR and called for an IFR clearance in the air. Aircraft Y was level flight at 6;000 feet. I was training a developmental (trainee) at the time. The developmental gave Aircraft X a squawk code and told him to maintain VFR AOB 5;500 feet. The pilot read this back. The developmental then cleared Aircraft X. I immediately noticed that he did not check ask the pilot if he could maintain his own terrain/obstruction avoidance. I prompted the trainee and he immediately corrected the clearance. The pilot was instructed eventually to turn 15 degrees left 'vectors for climb'. The pilot answered 'roger and I just want to verify you are keeping me at 5;000.' The trainee read back 'affirmative maintain 5;000 and turn 15 degrees left.' A couple minutes later the pilot climbed to 5;300 feet and the trainee verified his altimeter setting. After verification of correct altimeter setting the trainee told Aircraft X that he was 300 feet high (Now in Conflict Alert with Aircraft Y). The pilot said 'affirmative I climbed because you cleared me as filed.' We read the brasher statement and informed management of the loss of separation.The first issue was the clearance below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude. In this case my trainee has been training for quite a awhile and this was not a mistake he has made recently. It caught me off guard and I was not able to stop the clearance from being issued. I did not immediately and corrected the trainee however the clearance had already been issued. In the future I need to work on not being 'caught off guard' and ready to stop a clearance at any time.


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


Synopsis: ZID Center Controller instructor reported the trainee issued an IFR clearance to an aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude. Subsequently the aircraft climbed above their assigned altitude in conflict with an overflight.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Trainee
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting a pre-solo eval flight of a student pilot; a gusting crosswind turned the aircraft to the left so that the aircraft was not aligned with its relative motion down the runway just before touchdown. This caused the student to lose directional control of the aircraft upon landing; at which point I immediately took flight controls and applied rudder to try and regain directional control.I was unable to regain enough control to stay on the runway; and thus went off the runway. No injuries occurred and no significant damage to the aircraft was noticeable after parking.


Second narrative: On rollout a strong gusting crosswind from the right cause the nose to veer left off the runway. Two attempts were made to correct with right rudder; after no response from the rudder Instructor took command and the aircraft continued off the runway. It came to a full stop in the grass there was no damage to any people; planes; or property. Due to this incident; I have learned to act preemptively on rudders and aileron during landing approach and in crosswind conditions.


Synopsis: PA-28 flight crew reported loss of directional control during instructional flight resulting in runway excursion.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft blocked out 1 minute early.  We had received a revised release time during preflight checks.  I had calculated the 15 minutes.  At [one minute before the release time] I called for pushback clearance with Ops; at the same time the Captain misunderstood what I was doing and told the ground crew we were ready to push back.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported pushing back early due to miscommunication between the flight crew.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 500 feet after departure 2 flight attendants reported a chemical odor at doors 3L/R. In the cockpit the 3 of us smelled an odor similar to burning rubber which soon dissipated. The flight attendants wanted medical assistance and the decision to return to the departure airport was made. An overweight landing was made at 420;120 lbs; sink rate 200 FPM. Dispatch had also advised to make overweight landing. Logbook and odor forms were completed.I suggest [we] advise Inflight Services that during sterile cockpit phases of operation; one call to cockpit to advise us of a problem is sufficient.




Synopsis: After departure; the flight crew momentarily detected a burning rubber odor. The odor was stronger in the cabin which caused the flight attendants to be persistent so the Captain returned to the departure airport for a cautionary landing.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TOL.TRACON, OH
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C TOL
ATC / advisory: TRACON TOL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was vectored for an RNAV approach into TDZ. He was 3000 MSL when he was turned on to the approach. The aircraft descended to 2300 on their own; which is the altitude the aircraft should be at for the FAF. Prior to the FAF; the aircraft said they were having trouble with the approach and requested vectors out for the approach again. I vectored the aircraft out for the approach again; but didn't climb them from 2300. The MVA where they were is 2300; but the aircraft had to pass into an area where the MVA is 2400 in order to get vectored onto the approach. This didn't occur to me until the aircraft was a few miles into the higher MVA. It was an unusual situation and probably something that will be incorporated into the facility specific recurrent training.




Synopsis: TOL TRACON controller reported vectoring aircraft into higher MVA.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PVG.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G PVG
ATC / advisory: CTAF PVG
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Left downwind for Runway 28 abeam end of runway at 1500 feet. Had been advising CTAF of position multiple times. ADSB traffic alert of traffic 1 mile same altitude. Only other traffic on CTAF was on base and final legs for 28. A second automated traffic alert sounded and I spotted the traffic at 12 o'clock closing fast at which time I aggressively banked left while initiating a descent and had a high wing single engine pass off the right side traveling opposite direction. Joined base leg and landed without further incident.




Synopsis: Small transport pilot reported a near mid-air collision occurred while maneuvering in the traffic pattern of PVG airport.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DAL.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Hawker 4000
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on descent to DAL on the JFRYE3 arrival prior to GREGS ATC cleared us to 14;000 feet. We asked ATC if he needed the speed of 250 knots at GREGS and he said no and assigned 320 knots. We then switched frequencies and checked in with our speed assigned and ATC then said to comply at GREGS. This is where the mix-up occurred as we descended to comply with published speed and altitude at GREGS 250 knots and 10;000 feet. After talking to ATC on the phone the controller only wanted us to comply with the speed restriction not altitude. We assumed to comply with both speed and altitude as published. We should have asked for clarification and controller should have been more specific with the clearance.


Second narrative: On descent into the DAL on the JFRYE 3 RNAV Arrival and had just passed NUKLZ intersection on our way to GREGS intersection with a clearance of descend and maintain 14;000 feet and 320 knots or greater. We received an ATC handoff on our descent to 14;000 feet. I checked on with the new controller of our altitude; altitude assigned of 14;000 feet and speed assigned. The controller came back and said to 'comply at GREGS'. This is where the problem occurred. We assumed that we are now complying with the restrictions at GREGS intersection of At 250 KTS/At 10;000 feet. It was only after the event that we learned that the controller meant to comply with the speed at GREGS and NOT the Altitude. We assumed the clearance was to comply with the depicted altitude and speed at GREGS intersection. We should have asked for clarity instead of assuming. The controller should have been more specific with the instructions instead of assuming we understood that he meant to comply with the speed only. Assumption on both parties led to this learning experience for both crew and controller. No TCAS TA or RA was encountered with this event.


Synopsis: Hawker 4000 flight crew reported that while descending on a clearance including an altitude and speed; being instructed by the next Controller to comply at GREGS. The crew learned later that the Controller only wanted the speed.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZZ.Tower, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Windshear; 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: At XA+00z the flight crew arrived to the hotel lobby. When leaving to board the van we noticed the loadmaster was also leaving the hotel. Upon arrival to the aircraft the crew noted that it had already been loaded with the main deck and lower belly doors opened. The weather had changed to active precipitation before block out with LLWS advisories in effect; and reported 20 kt. loss on final and approach ends of runway XX. The crew re-ran the numbers for the OPT with max thrust calculations. It gave us flaps 15 takeoff for a weight of 271;985 lbs. The TOW MAC was 22.25% and a trim of 2.5. On takeoff at about 3;000 ft. we noticed the speed began to rapidly bleed off; we then disconnected the A/P and A/T; applied max thrust available and lowered the nose in an attempt to increase airspeed and stabilize. During the maneuver the First Officer had to fight the aircraft in order to bring the nose down. We recovered at about 3;000 ft. and 118 kts. We hand flew to 5;000 ft.; which was the atc assigned level off; before re-engaging the automation. We then continued the flight without any further incidents to ZZZ. Upon arrival in ZZZ the Load Supervisor; noticed the cans had been loaded incorrectly and the FAK (Freight of All Kinds) had not been accounted for properly. [Load Supervisor] then re-weighed all the cargo aboard and noticed the weight on some of the ULD (Unit Load Device) sheets were incorrect. The weight and balance the crew had received did not match the final paperwork that ZZZ station had received from ZZZZ. After receiving all of the information we proceeded to contact [name] to inform him of the situation and the errors discovery.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a weight and balance problem that resulted in aircraft control issues.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Ultralight
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] departed 25R at LAS on the SHEAD 7 Departure. While climbing through 10;000 FT past TAARK; we saw three powered parachutes at our altitude and directly in front of us. I disconnected the autopilot and increased our climb rate to avoid hitting them. One of the vehicles was missed by approximately 200-300 FT just under the nose. The other two passed under the left wing at about 500 FT. ATC was notified. No altitude or navigation deviations occurred.This is the first time I have seen this type of aircraft in this area. Some type of FAA circular should be sent to the owners of those types of aircraft in the area warning them of the danger of a 150-knot airplane running over them in the departure corridor.




Synopsis: While flying the SHEAD SID from LAS; a B737-700 flight crew took evasive action at approximately 10;000 MSL to avoid a flight of three powered parachutes.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E F11
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I had two aircraft on V3 with being handed off from different sectors. There was an overtake that I missed. The reason it was missed was because of the overloaded sector. With multiple approaches going on at satellite airports; departures from both airports; and traffic alerts needed the overtake was not seen. At one point the supervisor come over and asked if I was ok; to which I responded no. No actions were taken to help; in fact a tower was calling the desk because I was forced to turn a departure back into their airspace due to them not delivering a clean aircraft; headed right at another aircraft. The supervisor came to ask me about this instead.  When relief finally came after I had worked the sector for more than 2 hours the supervisor came to check on the sector again. The relieving controller stated that the sector should be split. It was not. The loss occurred with the closest proximity being 2.1 miles and no vertical. Separation was regained after a second supervisor came over to ask if we were ok with the two aircraft and the trailing aircraft was turned away. High workload for a long period of time was the leading cause of the loss. Also contributing was a lack of staffing since there was no one that could open the position. The supervisor could not because none of the supervisors on duty are certified on the satellite positions.I recommend timely opening of positions; more staffing and requiring the supervisors to be checked out on more positions.




Synopsis: F11 TRACON Controller reported working a busy combined sector that failed to notice an overtake between two aircraft resulting in a loss of separation.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent we experienced an A System Hydraulic failure. We ran the appropriate checklists and landed uneventfully. After arriving at the gate during post flight; after rechecking the landing performance calculations; we determined we were slightly over our approach climb weight for a flaps 40 landing.


Second narrative: Low altitude Hydraulic System A failure within high workload terminal area; completed QRH and landed without incident.  Upon post-flight debrief and review of our actions; we noticed that we were slightly overweight for the approach climb at flaps 40.Slow down and sight the entire performance page not just the runway data. This all happened really quick and in close proximity to the airport.  In hindsight; a vector should have been asked for to allow us to slow down a bit and be more thorough.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experiences an A system hydraulic failure during approach. The approach is continued to landing but post flight review determines that the aircraft was overweight for a flaps 40 landing.