elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Denver Center cleared us direct to MITBEE (MMB); but we heard MNKEE instead.  Both fixes were on our route.  Since we didn't know that MMB was MITBEE until much later in the flight; we assumed the clearance was direct MNKEE.  We read back 'cleared direct MNKEE' to Denver Center and then programmed the LNAV direct and executed that clearance.  Later in the flight; ATC asked us which fix we were flying to and we said MNKEE.  The Controller and I figured out that we had previously been cleared to MITBEE; but had mistakenly proceeded to MNKEE.   Both fixes were on our route and sounded similar.  We repeated the wrong fix and our error was not noticed by ATC.  This type of error is very difficult to catch.  Crew vigilance and situational awareness must be maintained to try to trap such errors.  ATC could have told us 'cleared direct MITBEE; Mike Mike Bravo' and that might have prevented our mistake.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported after Denver Center issued a clearance to a fix; the flight crew proceeded to a similar sounding fix. ATC informed the flight crew later that they were proceeding to the wrong fix.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This report documents a series of persistent UNSCHD STAB TRIM EICAS messages that were received on Aircraft X during my most recent pairing. The first indication was during taxi out an overnight-delayed flight. It appeared cyclically every few minutes; and [Maintenance Control] assisted in the clearing of the EICAS. We proceeded to ZZZ uneventfully. While taxi out of ZZZ 2 days later on ferry flight; the same EICAS appeared. Again [Maintenance Control] assistance cleared the caution through system resets. We gate returned and ZZZ maintenance confirmed a full system reset and that the previous cautions were nuisance only. At no time was actual stabilizer trim movement observed; and we elected to takeoff for ZZZ1. The UNSCHD STAB TRIM caution appeared passing 12;000 feet and began cycling on and off every few minutes; never staying on for more than a few seconds. We consulted the QRH; but as no actual trim movement was noted and the cautions were momentary; we did not run the procedure. Consultation with dispatch resulted in a non-emergency divert to ZZZ2. After mechanics and parts were flown in to ZZZ2; we attempted to fly [back to ZZZ1 on the] ferry flight. Again the UNSCHD STAB TRIM EICAS appeared; this time with engines off during the before pushback checklist; and the flight canceled. One more attempt by our crew was made to fly [the next day]; but flight was canceled pending further maintenance.




Synopsis: B767 First Officer reported multiple Stabilizer Trim anomalies.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working an IFR aircraft descending to 11;000. I was also working a VFR aircraft. The VFR was more than 50 miles south of his intended course trying to avoid weather and having difficulty seeing terrain at night. I advised the VFR of weather reported at airports along his route and suggested a safer route. The IFR aircraft inbound advised the VFR to remain south of his destination and proceed west awhile before turning north. At this time Tower requested IFR departure for a BE20. I released the BE20 to 12;000 as requested and stopped the inbound at 13;000. The Terrain Alert Volume (TAV) in the Center had recently been adjusted and I thought the route of flight would work for the new TAV [setting] but I would check it when he was airborne. The IFR inbound cancelled his IFR rather than be delayed into the airport. At this time I should have climbed the BE20 to 13;000 which is always safe going to his destination but neglected to do so. The BE20 entered a 12;900 TAV at 12;000. I advised the BE20 to maintain 12;000 while in controlled airspace. He answered; 'Maintain 13;000 while in controlled airspace.' I decided it was easier to allow him to climb than to correct him. I should have cleared the BE20 short to the VOR than checked the route to make sure it cleared all terrain.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a below authorized altitude event when failing to review route filed vs. altitude; listing both weather distractions and low Terrain Alert Volume (TAV) settings as contributing to the event.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on pre-final vectors. We were [then cleared direct JENFR;] 'cross JENFR at 4;100.' Both PF and PM confirmed that restriction was in the MCDU. PF switched to FLCH to expedite descent. Subsequently given 'cleared for the ILS Runway 30.' The PF put 2;500 in the MCP. Just prior to JENFR; we noticed aircraft descending through 4;100. Autopilot was disconnected by PF. Aircraft was leveled off at 3;850. We crossed JENFR a few seconds later; and continued our descent and approach. Nothing said by ATC. Switching out of VNAV with its inherent increased protection; and then subsequently setting a new altitude in the MCP...Obviously FLCH will not honor the restriction in the MCDU. Not catching the FLCH mode by the PM was also a cause.[To avoid this in the future:] Don't set the MCP window lower or higher than a restriction when operating in FLCH. Quicker/More Accurate cross checking by the PM.




Synopsis: A B757-200 flight crew; cleared to cross JENFR at 4;100 FT and; shortly after; cleared for the ILS 30 at OAK descended below the restriction when the PF entered the glideslope intercept altitude in the altitude alert window while operating in FLCH mode vice VNAV as intended.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was waiting for approach sequencing at 6000 feet. ATC asked my max speed on final and I gave them 160. ATC gave me a vector to intercept the localizer and asked that I maintain 170 knots and maintain 3000 feet until established. I was almost established when they gave me the vector in [to] intercept so I had to descend very fast to get below the glideslope; intercept; and maintain 170 knots. Typical approach speed in a SR22 is 100-120 knots but going into ZZZ this is very common to be asked to maintain 150-160. I was operating with the autopilot and upon reaching the 3000 feet altitude the autopilot did not arrest descent and the plane went well below 3000 feet before I could recognize it did not capture and disconnect the autopilot. I immediately pulled up to return to the assigned altitude. Lateral guidance was fine. ATC got a low altitude alarm and asked me to pull up within seconds of me manually arresting the descent. Climbed back to the altitude for that segment; returned to requested speed and hand flew the rest of the approach. Once over to Tower they asked [that] I slow because I was starting to encroach on the leading traffic. ATC asked if I wanted to be vectored for another attempt but since lateral guidance was maintained and the plane was climbing fine I elected to continue the approach.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported autopilot failed to level off in time and resulted in overshoot and ATC low altitude alert.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DLL.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E MSN
ATC / advisory: TRACON MSN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on an IFR flight plan in VMC conditions in the descent to my destination airport with my wife and 2 children onboard. Madison Approach gave me clearance to descend to 3;200 FT MSL. It was clear skies with calm winds in the area. I descended below my cleared altitude to approximately 2;600 FT MSL; when Madison Approach called me with a low altitude alert. I immediately cancelled my IFR clearance and continued descending VFR. At that time I was approximately 1;600 FT AGL over a flat land area. I was not in any danger of hitting any terrain or obstacles at that time. I was distracted with looking for the airport and any possible traffic in the area; therefore I lost track of maintaining my assigned altitude. Other factors that affected my altitude deviation was the excitement of our arrival after a long flight through some rough weather to our destination; where we would be surprising family members that we had not seen for a long while. This reminds me to not be complacent about my duties as the PIC and to not let emotions or other outside factors affect my scan of the cockpit instruments.




Synopsis: Distracted while searching for his destination airport at the end of a long IFR cross country the pilot of a BE55 descended 600 FT below his cleared altitude before being alerted by ATC.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight; the crew got an EICAS message. The message was hydraulic A volume low. The checklist calls to unload the A hydraulic system. This means that we do not have the A system for landing. The checklist calls for a longer landing distance; less flaps on landing; blow the gear down; and use the emergency brake system for bringing the aircraft to a stop on the runway. We diverted to [an alternate airport] for longer runway/crash fire rescue. We got the aircraft stopped on the runway; and were towed off the runway following the landing.




Synopsis: Cessna 750 Captain reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing the loss of the A Hydraulic System.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were taxing in after landing. I the FO shutdown engine 1 and started APU. Once the APU came on line we had multiple electrical issues. Loosing avionics 1 screens and erroneous messages on the EICAS messages appeared on the screen. Electrical systems page showed us to be operating on 2 gens. With APU on and the shed buses in override. After checking to make sure we could taxi safely we made the decision to continue to the gate to deplane passengers. Upon arriving at the gate when opening the cockpit door we found the cabin to still be pressurized The FA told us there was a huge bump in the pressurization. We had the ramp crews plug in the GPU so we could shut down engine 2 and try and depressurize the cabin to open the door. After doing a terminating procedure to shut down the aircraft the plane did not shut down like the batteries where still on. MX was called at this point and they had the capt perform an electrical reset with switches behind the seat.This plane needs to be looked at more carefully. I have an understanding that this has happened more than once and all that has been done is an electrical reset. If you were to have to shut an engine down in flight and this happens you would have a hard time navigating to the ground creating a huge safety issue in an already bad situation. Nothing on the avionics screen seemed reliable once the electrical issues started. I think the plane needs more than an electrical reset and to find the root cause of the problem.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported that during taxi and shutting down Number 1 engine; started the APU and was unable to establish electrical power.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B737 MAX 8
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending into ZZZ we were given a vector to the right of the arrival.  Later; we were given direct ZZZ1 VOR.  The First Officer; and pilot flying put ZZZ in the FMS and executed the change.  I thought I saw him select LNAV; but I began looking at the approach plate to review our arrival.  A minute later I noticed we were still in heading.  I immediately told him to turn to ZZZ1 VOR and select LNAV. ATC contacted us at that time and gave us direct ZZZ1 again.  I told them we were in the turn.This was both our first flight in the 737 Max and we were a little distracted at some of the newness of the aircraft.  Attention to flying the airplane when given a clearance even while Pilot monitoring is necessary at all phases of flying airplanes.




Synopsis: B737 MAX 8 Captain reported heading deviation during approach.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Strong gusty wind; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After cleared visual approach for Runway 33 in PANC; we descended to 1;300 ft. to catch PAPI. Due to the strong left gusty crosswind; we were a bit off course and Tower gave us altitude alert to check our altitude. We corrected and maintained flight path until we saw PAPI (3 red 1 white) and continued inbound with a normal landing. Correct actions: due to our heavy weight and gusty wind; we tried to maintain lower altitude to catch PAPI. We drifted right of course where terrain side was located and the temperature was low in that day; so the Tower told us we were a little low. In this case; we should consider about maintaining higher altitude for the cold temperature and plan to turn to final earlier due to the strong left crosswind to eliminate the possible low altitude warning and terrain concerns.




Synopsis: Wide body air carrier F/O reported receiving a low altitude alert from ANC Tower on a visual approach to Runway 33.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TPA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B TPA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were on the FOOXX4 arrival into Tampa. There is a point on the arrival called GUSNE. There is a point on the approach (which is the final approach fix) called COSME. The approach controller cleared me to COSME; however; I heard GUSNE. I read back; 'Proceeding direct to GUSNE.' Within a few moments the controller said that it looked like we were not tracking direct to COSME. I said; 'No we are going to GUSNE.' Controller clarified the clearance; we updated the FMS direct to COSME; and there seem to be no other issues.GUSNE (a point on the FOOXX4 arrival) and COSME (the FAF on the ILS 19L) sound too much alike. The controller said COSME but I heard and I read back GUSNE and proceeded direct to the wrong point. The controller did not catch that I read back the wrong point because they sound so much alike. The captain did not catch my error on the clearance either. My read back sounded ok to him; too.Change the names of these two points. They are too similar sounding. Get a better headset to possibly hear better.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of confusion caused by similar sounding waypoint names while on the FOOXX4 Arrival into TPA. The pilot hears; reads back; and proceeds to the wrong waypoint after being cleared by Approach Control.