elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had Aircraft X going into ZZZ and there was a VFR aircraft that turned and climbed into Aircraft X. I cancelled the approach clearance and climbed Aircraft X to 4;500 ft. Aircraft X advised climbing for an RA. I looked around to advise the person in charge of the area and could not see anyone. As I continued to work with aircraft not checking in or responding to correct call signs; I turned and asked for help and again did not see anyone in the area. I regained control but several aircraft were high on the approaches. I think everyone was separated by the standard separation but I honestly don't know. I had Aircraft Y going to ZZZ1 who said they wanted the GPS 12 Approach; so I cleared them direct ZZZZZ an IAF or IF for the approach and they turned south into a 5600 MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). I issued a Low Altitude Alert and Climb to 5;600 ft. They didn't comply; I issued a heading north and a climb. They were not responding which increased my workload even more. Based on their position; I might [have] even had an airspace violation. Again; no one seemed available to help. The airspace could be changed to help prevent VFR aircraft from being able to climb to the approach altitudes of ZZZ or [nearby] airports. Mainly I needed assistance and was not able to obtain any.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller without an Assist reported an unidentified VFR aircraft climbed into traffic on a final approach course and another aircraft deviated from their course into a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude Area.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Company Policy
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Charts plus EFB [has] constant crashing of software with new update. [Unable] to use. Reverted back to Jeppesen Pro X EFB and continued flight safely to ZZZ. Do not use CHARTS plus EFB as it always crashes and is extremely unstable. NOT SAFE for ANY operations or phase of flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported concerns regarding Chart plus software.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower JFK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our clearance from JFK did not include an arrival into JFK. We were cleared via fixes direct to the field and were on our cleared/filed flight plan. While in the descent to JFK; we were the first aircraft to be given holding instructions due to volume at JFK. The holding instructions were given extremely close to the holding fix; less than 10 NM. Also; to add to the confusion; the Approach Controller referenced and expected us to enter a holding pattern that was on an arrival that we were not assigned. This added a significant amount of confusion to the event. We asked for; and received vectors for the immediate time being. Eventually a hold was given that was based off of a radial that we were able to program and enter. Shortly thereafter; we were given vectors to leave the holding pattern and proceed to the field. During the vectors to the field; the Local Approach Controller assigned us the GPS to Runway 4L at JFK. We were unable to accept this approach as neither of us had GPS approach plates for 4L at JFK.The threats in this event were twofold. The first was ATC assigning us a hold that was not on our flight plan. The second threat was the timing of the assignment of the hold by ATC. The holding instructions were given too close to the holding fix to have a reasonable expectation that we would be able to comply.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of holding instructions that were non-standard and too close to where the aircraft was at the time.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just after takeoff when attempting to contact Departure Control; we received the ECAM 'VHF1 EMITTING.' We continued with the departure procedures; watched for traffic and continued to contact Departure Control. At level off we tried both our Radio Management Panel (RMP) and Audio Control Panel (ACP) without success. We then received another ECAM for 'VHF2 EMITTING.' Having one of our captains in the jump seat I had him try the third radio while I accomplished the QRH procedures and squawked 7600. He was able to reach a Controller on 121.5; however when instructed to contact ATC on another frequency; we received nothing. After continuous effort for several minutes to reach ATC; our ECAM messages cleared and our radios were normal for the duration of the flight. The QRH assumes there will only be one radio inoperative. My suggestion would be to make a note in the QRH regarding the transponder procedure if there happens to be a total loss of communication. It would also be nice to have a reference page for the lost comm procedure that is found in the Flight Operations Manual.




Synopsis: A320 Captain experiences lost communication on departure due to a stuck mic that is annunciated by ECAM as 'VHF1 EMITTING'. The problem transfers to VHF2 when that radio is selected and eventually clears on its' own.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; 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; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During arrival preparation both the Captain and I checked all the crossing altitudes to be correct and verified that there was no discrepancy on predicted flight path. When issued descend via clearance; I put in 4;300 feet. At top of descent I started down. As we approached [the] waypoint I saw that the aircraft was going to fly below the required altitude and immediately hit ALT Hold to stop the descent. Even though the FMC (Flight Management Computer) had the correct altitudes in; AND the PATH showed we would cross in the required altitude window; the aircraft was diving low. ALL was done correctly and the FMA (Flight Mode Annunciator) windows indicated all was correct; the aircraft was doing its own thing. This arrival descends through high rocky terrain. Had this threat not been trapped; a GPWS event was a real possibility. Even though I hit ALT HOLD as soon as I saw what was going to happen; we still went approximately 300 feet low on the crossing window.Teach aircrews to never trust the Airbus programming and maintain constant vigilance. Even though I am very comfortable on the Airbus this was a new one on me.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer reported that even though the FMS was correctly programmed the aircraft descended below the entered altitude.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: O85.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF O85
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to destination; I had occasion to turn comm volume down to speak with a passenger riding in the copilot seat; as he did not have a headset. We had previously been dropped from Flight Following as we were below radar coverage in a mountainous region. We were also not yet in range for CTAF communications at the destination. You already know what happened; I forgot about the volume control. I chose to land on Runway 34 at the destination; there was no traffic on the radio (duh) and a visual search of the area revealed no other traffic. Right after touchdown; at the threshold; I noticed a landing light at the opposite end of the runway. A Cessna had just landed on the opposing runway. Fortunately; we were both well-stopped at opposite ends of the 5;000 FT runway; and there was no 'close call.' After parking; a man appeared from the FBO building and told me that I was the 'not receiving' aircraft. I knew instantly why. As I got ready to depart moments later; I apologized to all on frequency.Not to make excuses; but the other guy; having heard my multiple broadcasts during my arrival; should have gone around; and not insisted on the right of way; I know I would have. This is unfortunately not the first time I have done this in my 35-ish years of flying. Of all the things annunciated on modern avionics; I'll go on record as suggesting that 'LO COMM VOL' should be one of them. Anyway; this is why I feel like a total idiot today.




Synopsis: BE58 pilot landed at a non-towered airport and observed another aircraft land simultaneously on the opposite runway. Although all CTAF calls were made; the BE58 pilot heard no other transmissions due to having previously lowered the radio volume.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon reaching ZZZ we were given the ILS to [Runway] XXL; and the clouds were reported at few at 300 feet. But was actually more a solid layer than few. I was flying the aircraft; and the Captain was the pilot monitoring. We started the approach no issues. We started entering the clouds around 600-700 feet on the approach. The Captain made the 500 foot call out and shortly after called lights in sight. I looked up; seen the approach lights; then disconnected the autopilot to prepare for landing. I should have left it engaged. While trying to divide my attention between the inside and outside of the aircraft; we became unstable and made the decision to go-around. I shoved in full thrust; hit the go around buttons; and the Captain called go-around to the Tower. I called for flaps 8 and we started to climb out and speed up; and was told to turn out to the left; on a heading; we continued to climb out at 200 knots until 3000 AGL; and then sped up to 250 knots. The Captain told me to bring the power back some. We got our flaps up; and After Takeoff Checklist; and continued to fly the aircraft. We both heard a loud noise but could not figure out where it was coming from. The Captain then realized as we were on downwind that the gear was still down. I had never called for gear up; and now we have over sped the gear limitation off 220 knots. We set up for another approach; this time we performed a CATII approach to the same runway; and the Captain landed the aircraft with no issues. Once arriving at the gate; the Captain notified Maintenance of the situation.I should not have disengaged the autopilot when I did; I drastically increased my workload at the wrong time by trying to manually fly while making sure I have runway environment in sight. [I] need to keep go around procedure fresh in mind at all times. This event showed me even if you know the procedure and call outs; it is imperative to stay calm to properly execute what needs to be done.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer reported that the autopilot was disconnected early causing an unstabilized approach and a go-around.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Other Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were assigned the TRUPS RNAV STAR; BKW transition followed by the Mt. Vernon Visual to Runway 1 into DCA. The overall environmental conditions were good daytime VFR; with high clouds; a quartering tailwind on the arrival and light winds and good visibility on the approach. Both the Captain and I are well experienced on the aircraft flown; and are familiar with DCA operations. We did not knowingly violate any FARs and complied with all crossing restrictions on the arrival and approach. During our post flight debrief we both agreed that the recently issued TRUPS STAR has an excessively high work load for non FMS aircraft and simply put; can be unsafe. We both feel that this issue needs to be addressed; prompting this report. In order to comply with all altitude crossings and airspeed restrictions both pilots are often heads down; too busy to monitor traffic; aircraft systems; etc. and can have difficulty complying with normal operating procedures. Excessive tailwinds and environmental conditions such as icing; turbulence; locally high barometric settings as well as last minute runway changes can often make these restrictions near impossible. The typical mission oriented pilot will often willingly accept this arrival and do his best; yet under certain conditions his or her best efforts may not be good enough and a violation and or accident could possibly be the result. It our opinion that this arrival should not be issued to non-FMS equipped aircraft and serious inquiry is needed.




Synopsis: An MD-83 First Officer outlined problems he has experienced while flying Optimized Descent Profile RNAV STARS; in the instant case; the TRUPS RNAV STAR to DCA. He declares such procedures to be potentially unsafe; especially in fleets without full VNAV capability due to their excessive workload demands on the flight crew.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While landing the right main tire ended up disintegrated. The weather was clear with good visibility and light wind out of the east. Approach was normal down to the runway. At touchdown the speed brakes were deployed and I began to apply brake pressure. I immediately had to release the right side and apply significant left rudder for the remainder of the rollout. The left brake was working and I used it as little as possible to slow the aircraft on the runway. At some point (maybe 80 knots?) the aircraft began to pull hard right. I was able to maintain the aircraft on the runway by using more left rudder and some left brake. The aircraft gave me the feeling that it was on ice at this point with some kind of a 'fish tail' oscillation occurring. As the aircraft slowed it was more stable. As the aircraft got very slow it was fully controllable and I used the remaining momentum [to] roll off the runway onto taxiway. We then ran a normal after landing and shutdown on the taxiway. Upon exiting the aircraft we observed the right main tire was badly damaged and mostly shredded.I am not sure what the cause was. I would guess the tire deflated during flight; or there was FOD on the runway; or there was some kind of a brake/anti-skid malfunction. There were no cautions or warnings indicating any anti-skid issues. Without more information; I am unable to suggest a way to avoid this in the future.




Synopsis: BE-400 Captain reported the right main gear tire failed on landing rollout.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RIV.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Tower RIV
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was doing a dual cross country flight with a student to French Valley Airport [F90]; which is located in the vicinity of the Perris Valley-Hemet-Lake Elsinore area. This area is known for having its fair amount of skydiving and glider activity. We obtained a standard VFR brief and departed for F90. On the ground; we asked for flight following and were handed off by the Tower to SCT. The weather was VMC; but there was some light haze. As we were about approximately 15 miles out from F90; SCT handed us off to RIV and we stayed east of the area designated for sky diving activities. There was some turbulence over the area. At approximately 5;500 FT I noticed a plane at my 11 o'clock; descending. I banked our plane to the right. It may or may not have been a sky diving aircraft; but I would venture to say that it probably was. I did not get any advisories from MIV regarding this particular plane. I received one advisory a couple of minutes prior stating that an aircraft was climbing and that the traffic was not a factor. Could the plane that was descending been the same one; I am not sure. However; if it was a sky diving aircraft; they sometimes tend to report to SCT on 134.0. However; if they did check in with SCT we were already handed over by SCT to MIV. So there might be a slight gap in information between MIV and SCT. However; what I will do is when I am handed over to MIV from SCT on the next flight to F90 is that I will listen to the previous SCT frequency and/or monitor the advisory frequency that the sky diver operators use. And if ever in-doubt query the controllers regarding traffic advisories. And I may avoid F90 on the weekends because of the intensity of the different skydiving; parachuting; glider activities that occur in the vicinity during that time period.




Synopsis: A C172 Instructor with a student on a weekend training event took taking evasive action from an aircraft after an apparent skydiving drop 15 miles from F90.