elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Boeing Company 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
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Failed
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 Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This aircraft lost both FMCs 3 times. This was written up inbound. When the aircraft arrived in ZZZZ (Asia) the bad FMC was just signed off as a reset; ops check good. We picked up this aircraft and approaching the West Coast of America; lost both FMCs. I was woken up from break and I found one First Officer hand flying the aircraft and the other First Officer with the book out trying to solve the problem. I was informed that the book did not address the problem (as was also written up previously) without the book; I selected the FMC master to the right position and got a blue line. I activated the route. Then the First Officer cleaned up the route and performance numbers. We selected the left Captain's selector to FMC right. The First Officer notified the Center that we had lost all navigation; but it was now operable on one FMC. We had not drifted off course; so there were no further problems. Called Dispatch and notified him. He entered the write up and I asked him to make sure this is repaired. This could have been a tragedy if it happened on approach in minimum weather; or it could have caused a navigation deviation across the ocean. The write ups have to be fixed in ZZZZ and tell them to stop just signing things off. They appear to be very intimidated to not cause any delay or cost to the company.




Synopsis: A Captain reported accepting an aircraft that had been written up on the inbound flight for three dual FMC failures. The discrepancies are signed off by Maintenance as reset FMCs. The problem appears again over the North Pacific on the return flight.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34 Seneca Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I'm embarrassed to say I lost a bit of situational/positional awareness while working with a student. While my student was practicing various maneuvers; I was monitoring our position using ForeFlight on an iPad instead of using a paper chart. The device had started to glitch and I rebooted it and set it aside for a few moments. When I was able to relaunch the app; I did....except I never noticed this before; but the rings depicting Class B can be of various 'intensity' on the map view while using this iPad application. Some rings were lighter than others and the ring of CLE Class B airspace that we were closest to; escaped my attention. It has been nearly two decades since I have worked with students in this area; so my once second-nature knowledge of the area was rustier than I realized. At the altitude we were at; we may have inadvertently entered the edge of the CLE Class B without a clearance...or come close to it. The device froze again and I set it aside. As soon as I noticed the possibility of an infringement; I immediately had the student point the airplane in a direction that would continue to keep us clear. I normally ask for radar services as an extra measure of protection against collisions and airspace incursions; and I will go back to my policy of doing so. I will also make sure to use other sources of info to help keep us clear of Class B (like the raw DME distances of each of the Class B rings; besides relying on the iPad's pretty picture. And I will be sure to make sure to carry a paper chart as a backup; even VFR).




Synopsis: PA-34 Instructor reported potentially entering the edge of Bravo airspace without a clearance during training with student.
Date: 202203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MMUN.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Search & Rescue
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MMUN
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I was the First Officer acting as Pilot Flying landing Runway 12R at MMUN. When coordinating with the Captain the transfer of controls; we were given runway exit instructions to 'join Taxiway A'. Having been to MMUN 10+ times; I assumed we would take A3 to proceed east on A; then south on D; then west on C. However; as we reached the end of A3; the Controller told us to make a hard right onto A and hold short of H2. Taxiway A does not exist on the Jeppesen Chart on my EFB. After the flight I verified my chart database was updated.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported the assigned taxiway Alpha was not on the EFB Jeppesen 10-9 airport chart.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYYZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On LINNG 3 Arrival for Runway 24R; we were approaching LINNG when YYZ arrival gave us a clearance to 'descend and maintain 8;000 FT.' Although the next fix; YOUTH; shows a box that says 'between 13;000 FT and 11;000 FT'; we proceeded down to 8;000 FT as we did not receive a 'descend via' clearance; and as so believed we were required to descend all the way to 8;000. Only after crossing YOUTH at about 10;000 FT in our descent to 8;000 FT; we noticed the #3 note on the top of the chart that says 'When a lower altitude is issued; pilots shall descend on the STAR profile to the ATC assigned altitude. Charted restrictions above the assigned altitude remain mandatory.' The ATC controller didn't mention anything to us about crossing YOUTH below 11;000 FT; but from that point on we crossed all altitudes in accordance with the published arrival altitudes. In US airspace; this profile would be phrased as a 'descend via' clearance if higher altitudes were to be crossed before going down to the ATC assigned altitude; but it appears this is not the case in Canada according to the chart. I believe this is a new procedure on the YYZ arrivals effective FEB 2012 according to the chart; as I have never encountered this situation before on YYZ arrivals.Better examination/briefing of the notes on the arrival chart before starting the arrival; also; better understanding of differences in Canadian ATC clearances.




Synopsis: An ERJ-170 flight crew descending on the LINNG STAR to 24R at CYYZ failed to comply with the required crossing altitude restriction between 13;000 and 11;000 at YOUTH when cleared to descend to 8;000 MSL. Only after descending below 11;000 did they read the chart note explaining the difference between US and Canadian descent clearances on STARs.
Date: 202012
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other towing aircraft
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft being pushed back from gate XX in ZZZ. Just prior to our pushback; another company had started to tow a type X aircraft from gate XX1 to XX2 (I didn't see which gate specifically as I was the wing-walker). The crew towing the type X aircraft cut across the ramp when they had plenty of room to maneuver around our flight and in the process give us plenty of room. The other company tow team's action forced me to motion to our pushback driver to stop the push ASAP. We stopped our push and the other company continued to their gate. Our crew then continued our push back and dispatched the flight normally. The X gates are being used for RON aircraft due to ongoing COVID-19 flight reductions.




Synopsis: Ground wing-walker reported ramp safety concerns because of the unusual aircraft parking areas needed during the COVID-19 reductions.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying at FL290 at an airspeed of 260 kts. when ATC gave us a clearance of 'maintain 290 until SALYY and then descend via the ANJLL 4 arival at 260 kts.' I was the Pilot Monitoring and took this to mean fly 290 kts. until SALYY and then descend via the arrival at 260kts. The Controller meant this as maintain FL290 until SALYY; and then descend via the arrival at 260 kts. The next altitude on the arrival was GLESN between FL300 and FL240 so when we began our descent before SALYY the Controller very quickly told us we were entering a restricted area and to climb to FL290. After receiving the clearance the pilot flying expressed some confusion with the clearance and I repeated back the clearance to him; and told him the Controller wanted 290 kts. until SALYY. He asked me to clarify the clearance with the Controller. I asked how else could that be interpreted; and he said he heard the 290. So I thought; ok you heard 290; and I heard 290 where is the confusion? It wasn't until he began to descend from FL290 that I first thought uh oh! That's what he was confused about and a few moments later ATC came on and told us to climb back up to FL290. The immediate cause of this event was the Controller and I both reading the clearance without the words maintain Flight Level 290; and instead just maintain 290; which lead to confusion of whether he wanted 290 kts. or FL290. But; also; this was very poor CRM on my part in not clarifying the clearance with ATC. In my mind; the clearance was clear; and I showed stubbornness in not wanting to clarify a clearance with ATC. And that was; perhaps; compounded with the flying pilot not stating clearly what he was confused about. Regardless of that though; when asked to clarify the clearance; I should not have hesitated to do so.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported misinterpretation of ATC clearance of altitude and speed resulted in altitude deviation and airspace violation.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I took a point out from sector 10 on Aircraft X climbing east. I immediately looked at the flight plan and saw that the aircraft was going to Canada via Boise and had the CIC call the area F supervisor to ask if we could send the medevac through Nellis airspace. He said we could do it; so I then called Bearmat and asked if they could take a point out on the aircraft. The 'controller's' response was 'We don't do point outs.'  Now; this wasn't a safety situation; but it is an important culture that needs to be rectified. There are very few controllers who will give a medevac direct routing or even try to get approval or clearance through military airspace. We just need to do better and work together to get priority aircraft priority handling.I think we need to have yearly CBI's [Computer Based Instruction] and briefings to remind controllers what their responsibilities are regarding medevac and priority aircraft. We also need to work with the surrounding military facilities and force them to work these aircraft or sterilize their airspace to accommodate them.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller had a lifeguard flight that he wanted to get a direct routing for. He called the approving military facility and they said they don't approve point outs. Controller thought that a service to the flight was denied by the military facility.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E DAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON DAB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was level at 090 and Aircraft Y was climbing from 050 to 070; both in the same area. The Conflict Alert went off and I saw traffic in front of Aircraft X indicating 090 and 20 KTS faster displaying a unique transponder code. I issued traffic to Aircraft X who did not have the traffic in sight. The traffic seemed to disappear and reappear in different relative positions to Aircraft X (12 o'clock; 3 o'clock; 9 o'clock) and the transponder codes were different each time. The codes being displayed were different from any other aircraft I was working including pending aircraft in my strip bay. Eventually the traffic disappeared and did not return. I was using FUSION during the entire event.I think this is an issue with our surveillance system; but I don't know which component (STARS; ASR; etc.).




Synopsis: DAB Controller reports of erroneous targets appearing in front of traffic being worked with different transponder codes at each hit of the radar.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MBB-BK 117 All Series
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were dispatched to a scene to pick up a patient to take north. The weather at the site was showing 4;300 and 10 miles and had been improving throughout the day. Weather at the destination was VFR with 10 miles visibility below the ceiling. There were no radar returns on the weather display before the launch.After loading the patient at the scene we started north. After about five minutes of flight I noticed that the weather was coming down and there was an increase in haze and water vapor. We still had three plus miles of visibility but it was not what we started with.  I set the radar bug at 500 feet for a little extra altitude and slowed up a bit. I started a left turn toward better weather when we encountered a sudden light/moderate shower that hadn't been there an instant before as best I can describe it. The water on the windshield reduced my ability to see out the window. I continued my left turn into a 180 degree turn because we had good visibility in that direction and headed back. At the same time I informed the med crew that it wasn't possible to get to our destination because of the weather. We decided that we needed to land and transfer the patient to an ambulance.  We landed at a nearby hospital. The patient was transferred; the med crew went with him; and I flew back to base.I waited until the med crew got back so we could debrief. During the debrief the med crew told me that we passed low over an antenna. I did not see any antennas; nor do I know of any antennas at our altitude in that general area. The radar altimeter was set and it never alarmed.I am raising my launch minimums at the destination airport to take flights in the daytime to help ensure more favorable weather along the route. There was no indication on the weather computer that this weather was out there. Possibly because of the semi hilly territory.This particular aircraft has an older GPS navigation system which is without a moving map display. It does not track the closest user waypoints (such as hospitals) on the moving map. To enter a waypoint requires scrolling through a long column of waypoints with a variable speed cursor; which can be delicate to do. This results in greater head down time when compared to a moving map Garmin.




Synopsis: A medical helicopter flight to transfer a patient was diverted due to weather.  The patient was transferred to a ground ambulance.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JYO.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: CTAF JYO
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the last evaluated maneuver of an FAA instrument rating check ride; I instructed the applicant to conduct the GPS 17 approach to JYO. The applicant (PIC) checked the weather; which to my recollection reported 4 knot winds; but I don't remember the direction. Since the applicant had already demonstrated the circling approach to a landing required by the ACS (Airman Certification Standards); he elected to land straight in on runway 17. The applicant made two self-announced radio calls that he was landing on runway 17 when 13 miles out and 3 miles out prior to entering the SFRA (Special Flight Rules Area).I called the runway in sight and the applicant removed his view limiting device. While maneuvering to land on runway 17 about 1 mile from the threshold; I noticed a large airplane enter the runway at the opposite end (Runway 35). I immediately called on the radio 'aircraft landing runway 17; exit the runway immediately' twice. I saw the aircraft at the end of the runway turn around and return behind the runway hold short line; so the applicant continued his landing maneuver without further incident.




Synopsis: Designated Pilot Examiner reported that while on final approach to a non-towered airport; another aircraft lined up on the departure end of the runway.
Date: 201307
Weather elements / visibility: clear
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was on final and my right landing gear light did not come on. It had done this in the past so I wiggled it and it came on showing the gear was down. I thought the gear was down like usual. But as I started to land I worried it may not be down and tried to activate the manual gear. As I was landing the right side of the plane started to go down. I caught [and] leveled it on 2 wheels. I was only able to do this shortly and was afraid I was going to cartwheel. So I lifted up and lifted the gear; so I could simply slide; which I did.




Synopsis: PA28RT pilot reported the right main landing gear collapsed on landing even though the green light was on.