elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I would like to clarify an operational issue at SFO and the NorCal Tracon expectations for a down the bay visual approach and also if the Controller Handbook has any J Order on this issue.What is the NorCal expectation for arrivals from the north for a down the bay visual specific to 28R; when the ATIS is advertising only charted visual approaches and specifically when the controller clears the flight for a visual approach; which is not advertised on the ATIS; only the charted visuals are advertised; should the flight when turning in outside of 10-15 DME from SFO; is the TRACON expecting the flight to intercept the extended centerline or localizer of 28R? Or intercept the charted visual offset of SFO 095 radial to angle into the runway?From a safety perspective and our previous issues with the join up on 750 foot centerline spacing; when our pilots hear cleared for the visual; from the north; they do not expect that the controller wants them to follow the charted visual offset course at their intercept point; but their own heading or assigned heading to join the extended centerline; near the Dumbarton bridges with the possible overshoots on a 750 foot non convergence zone threat area. This has been contributory to the TCAS RA issues and might be a good idea to get clarification and expectation from NorCal or a J Order guidance; to determine if it is different than as stated above we might need to communicate that out to our pilots. Also if they are expecting a straight in- non offset final approach course from the north; the ATIS should state something to that effect to include visual approaches in addition to the charted visuals to remain consistent with the ATIS identifying all expected approaches the pilots might receive a clearance for. This is important in that with iPads; the ability to select proper approaches and have corresponding paper chart back up available is important as part of a planning process and briefing.




Synopsis: Pilot inquired how ATC expects them navigate to the airport when vectored to a north downwind for a visual approach.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 5
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Aero Commander 500 Series
Operator: Other Aerial firefighting
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other Fire mapping
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Other Aerial firefighting
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While climbing to complete a fire mapping mission; I was cleared to 17;000 ft. MSL. I asked for a block altitude of 17;000 ft. - FL190 due to the presence of a smoke column that would likely cause me to deviate from my assigned altitude. As I got closer to the column; my altitude shot up to 17;500 ft. before I received further clearance. At some point I was cleared to FL210. I became so task saturated managing piston engines during the climb; attempting to complete the mapping mission with two camera operators in the backseat; avoiding the smoke column and negotiating block altitudes with ATC that I failed to change my nose cannula to a full face mask above FL180. I started to have extreme difficulty processing information in a timely manner; as well as making decisions and communicating effectively. After asking for a lower altitude; 17;000 ft.; I was able to think clearly and manage tasks and communication appropriately.




Synopsis: AC500 pilot reported deviating from assigned altitude and neglecting oxygen face mask requirements.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I filed an IFR flight plan over the phone with flight services using the TEC route SMON7 from SMO to ZZZ. Upon arriving to the airport; I called SMO ground to receive my IFR clearance. SMO ground gave me the clearance: 'Cleared to ZZZ; on departure; fly runway heading; at the LAX 315 radial; turn right 250. Radar vectors; Seal Beach. Direct. 3000; expect 5000 5 minutes after departure. Frequency 125.2. I had filed /U for this aircraft since I had not verified the status of the GPS database. As a result; I expected that ATC would be vectoring me around easterly towards an IAF for the ZZZ VOR approach.During the flight at 5000 feet; ATC directed me to fly direct to Seal Beach. As I approached the VOR; I inquired with ATC as to what route I should be flying after departing the Seal Beach VOR. The controller told me that they had expected me to be flying the SMON7 TEC route (so that I should fly onwards along V8). The controller was surprised/confused when I told him that SMO ground had given me Seal Beach Direct ZZZ. Direct; as I knew and as they commented on frequency about; would put me directly in line with the approach segments for LAX also at 5000 feet.




Synopsis: Tower issued a clearance not coordinated with TRACON. Pilot and ATC resolved the ambiguity while airborne.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our flight departed from ZZZ enroute to EWY. Clearance was issued as follows: 'CLEARED TO EYW AIRPORT [via SID] FLY TOWER ASSIGNED HEADING THEN AS FILED MAINT 3000FT (ZZZ..ZZZZZ..MTH..EYW..KEYW)'. Established level at our cruise altitude of 14;000 ft. and on our cleared route we were handed off to MIA Center (ZMA). ZMA cleared us Direct to EYW and we proceeded on the new route. During our descent ZMA issued the cross a fix not on our route at 10;000 ft. We believed we heard GINGA as the controller pronunciation had the hard G sound. Looking at the chart the closest intersection with this sound was GIGIH. However; as we now know the fix was JANKA to the South. We requested clarification of the intersection 4 times from ZMA and received no response. Believing the clearance was to a GIGIH we started out turn to the West and continued our decent to meet the restriction. ZMA asked if we wanted to arrive from the North to EYW and we responded we had no preference. ZMA then issued at turn to heading 180 and we continued our descent to 10;000 ft. ZMA handed us off to Navy Key West Approach and the flight continued without incident. Upon landing and researching the charts in more detail we discovered the similar sounding intersections of GIGIH and JANKA in the EYW area; neither of which were on our flight plan. It is my opinion no violations occurred; and all altitude restriction were accomplished as published; however; the Safety of Flight is highest priority at our company and the crew felt this issue should be submitted as an ASAP report to further pilot education and professionalism. Similar sounding intersection names not on our flight plan. Controller pronunciation and being unable to confirm the waypoint.The ability to confirm the proper waypoint spelling with ATC.




Synopsis: Small Transport Captain reported a track deviation due similar sounding waypoint names located in the same area.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Feet wet; several minutes south of DIW; clear air; smooth air; sudden extreme mountain wave activity caused the aircraft to be unable to maintain desired altitude; airspeed; and N1. Some choppiness and minor airspeed deviations had occurred when feet dry over North Carolina - suspected mountain wave activity. Conditions smoothed when feet wet. Wind from the west at 190+/- KTS; then sudden windshear +/- 30 KTS. Had to throttle right back (<50 percent N1) to keep from over speed; needed to descend. Declared emergency to descend to FL380 because I could not maintain altitude and airspeed. During the descent the wind speed fluctuated wildly between 120 and 190 KTS. This caused 'coffin corner ' to be observed about 3 times during the extreme wind speed fluctuations; the min spread was about 5 KTS and the wide spread was about 50 KTS on the airspeed tape. I was busy locked onto the 'ball and needle' while coaxing the plane down to FL380 and while waiting for the engines to spool back up to the normal N1 range for cruise. After 3 to 4 minutes; regained complete control of altitude; airspeed; and N1. Continued toward OZENA fix. Then contacted Dispatch/Maintenance after clearing the emergency condition with ATC. Concurrence between PIC; MC; and Dispatch that extreme turbulence was not encountered which would have required an inspection of the aircraft by MC. Upon later debrief with the lead F/A while enroute after the discussion with Dispatch and MC; learned that the passengers experienced nothing more than the choppiness of the occurrence; and didn't seem concerned; but that the flight attendants had recognized something unusual had occurred. Then continued to destination without further incident.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reports encountering mountain wave like conditions at FL400 over the western Atlantic. Large airspeed excursions are reported and altitude cannot be maintained. An emergency is declared until clear of the conditions then canceled.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 310/T310C
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Oil Pressure Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was in cruise at 8;000 FT along my route when the right engine oil pressure gauge showed low pressure. Although the props did not loose speed and the temperature did not seem to rise; an emergency was declared and a landing was performed at the nearest airport. While in descent; the instrument was tapped with the fingers and the needle moved up some. When touch down was achieved; the needle returned to normal with the light jolt of landing. On the ground I ran the engine checked the oil and all was in normal range. The props could be feathered. It was concluded that the initial reading was an error and the journey was continued without events.




Synopsis: A C310 pilot declared an emergency due to a low oil pressure indication; diverted to an enroute airport and landed uneventfully.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SA-227 AC Metro III
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fire Extinguishing
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Maintenance personnel were instructed to [remove and replace] the #1 engine fire bottle that was due for scheduled maintenance. [The] acting lead mechanic called and stated that during the fire bottle change on the aircraft; power was applied and the fire bottle was discharged. Upon investigation it was found that the power and the ground wires on the fire bottle squib had been swapped and the squib was not wired properly. During investigation the mechanic performing the work stated that the wires were pre labeled but the following day when another fire bottle was installed no labels were noted on the wires and a full run down of the wiring print had to take place prior to installing the replacement bottle. Mechanic was counseled on the need to label everything removed no matter how small it may be.

Callback: The reporter confirmed that the fire bottle does not have a conventional connector for the squid. It has individual wires that are disconnected and reconnected independently.



Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that when electrical power was reapplied following the routine replacement of a Metroliner engine fire extinguisher bottle; the bottle was unexpectedly discharged. He revealed that wires had been incorrectly connected due to mislabeling of the wires.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Windshear
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is an unusual situation that I feel must be addressed. A severe thunderstorm developed north of ORD and moved directly over the field. Even though our weather equipment showed numerous micro-bursts in the cell up to 45 KTS; arrivals for all 3 west runways continued to be used; mainly 28 and 27L. Instead of holding aircraft until the storm passed; aircraft were sent directly into this cell. When the micro-bursts hit the field; wind went from 270 at less than 15 to 010-140 gusts to 45 KTS. It was bad enough that one aircraft had to try and make an approach; but a total of 8 or 9 were sent directly into this storm and made missed approaches before other aircraft were taken off the approach. This was a total failure by the FLM to recognize the danger and to avoid putting many lives at risk. This was by far the most hazardous situation I have seen. I have seen plenty of storms but none handled with such incompetence. A full investigation should be conducted including all weather data.




Synopsis: C90 Controller described a severe weather event including numerous microbursts; the reporter questioning the FLM's decision to not initiate holding sooner.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Ground Control and had noticed that an E145 was taxiing down Taxiway WP extraordinarily slowly; so slowly that there were several airplanes behind him that taxied out several minutes later; in my opinion it was extremely excessive; and a major cause of this runway incursion. This got the pilots and the Local Controller a little anxious to get departures rolling before we start taking delays. The Local Controller put the conflict E145 into position on 33L at WL; several minutes later the ASDE-X alarmed and I looked up thinking it was a false alert to realize that the aircraft made a wrong turn and was trying to LUAW on 33R as a 737 was mid takeoff roll. Local then said she saw it ahead of the alert and told the aircraft to hold position as the 737 took off. The runway status lights need to be turned on; these have been in the works for too long. Some pilots are taxiing excessively slowly at times which has caused other problems reference crossing runways as controllers are not expecting them to taxi so slowly or get too anxious and irritated. The ASDE-X did not alarm with enough time to stop a catastrophic accident if Local had not stopped the E145. I did not see the situation developing; but from what I saw the ASDE-X did not sound with enough warning time to correct the situation. Perhaps it would be a good idea to set up a different kind of alert similar to a CA that would alert the Tower if a situation could possibly develop.




Synopsis: IAH Controller described a developing runway incursion event; prevented by Local Control intervention; the reporter listing runway status lighting procedures and delayed ASDE-X alarms as causal factors.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: TRACON S56
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X entered my airspace at 11;000 feet and 210 knots on a STAR. He was requesting a change to a parallel runway. I told the aircraft [to] expect the assigned runway due to straight in traffic on their requested runway. Then a moment later I instructed the aircraft to descend and maintain 9;000 feet. The pilot read back the altitude correctly. A few moments later I told the aircraft that I would try to position them so that the Tower may be able to move them over to their requested runway and to make the request with Tower once I issue them a frequency change. After that transmission I noticed the aircraft was descending through 8;600 feet above an 8;500 foot MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude). I quickly gave the aircraft a base turn heading 070 degrees - to turn them away from the mountains beside them - and maintain 8;500 feet. The pilot quickly complied but had already descended through the MVA to 8;200 feet. I did not issue a low altitude alert as there were more pressing transmissions to make; the short time of the event and the aircraft's close proximity to airport on a base turn. I then notified the Supervisor and requested the Tower issue a brasher warning after the aircraft had landed. This event was clearly a pilot deviation but I could ensure to improve my scan to catch the aircraft descending through their assigned altitude sooner.




Synopsis: S56 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft on vectors descended below the assigned altitude and below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.