elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Saab 340 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working the south departure position while providing OJT (On Job Training) with frontal passage weather impacting all departures routed to the east of MIA. Traffic volume was at maximum capacity.  During the session I had to stop departures twice to minimize my volume. The supervisor stopped departures one more additional time in order to minimize traffic. During a period of high traffic my developmental turned Aircraft X to a 90 degree heading in order to avoid a conflict simultaneously the tower departed Aircraft Z that did not tag up because of a wrong squawk code while attempting to correct the squawk code issue Aircraft X continued to travel easterly and came in conflict with Aircraft Y on downwind to MIA.  Both aircraft were at 6000 feet.  No CA/MSAW alert sounded.  I continued to work the position for a period of time because of a staffing shortage.Traffic was extreme and ZMA had in trail restrictions.After stopping departures and restarting them I asked the tower for additional in trail and the tower supervisor instructed the local controller to depart aircraft faster. The tower controller told the supervisor that ZMA had flow restrictions but the tower supervisor told him to disregard the restrictions and launch harder because OJT was being performed on the departure procedure.  All of this information was brought to management's attention and both the tower supervisor and tower controller were interviewed.In my opinion all the parts of this puzzle; weather reroutes; heightened arrivals to TMB due to NASCAR activity; skydive operations; etc were not taken into consideration with regards to the position I was working causing an overload of traffic.




Synopsis: MIA TRACON Departure Controller reports of being inundated with traffic and stopping departures at least three times to get sector under control. Controller has an operational error with an aircraft they turned away from another departure; but this aircraft then became a conflict with an arrival on the downwind. Controller reported the Front Line Manager in Tower instructed the Local Controller to disregard the flow and launch harder because OJT was being performed in the departure sector.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ and planning a normal Flaps landing; speeds 147/142. I was the Flying Pilot and we were asked to slow from 230 to 170. I called for flaps 5 from 1 and then flaps 10. Speed was too great for flaps 10 so changed it to flaps 5. Right after that; intercepted the glideslope and called for gear down; flaps 15; and then flaps 30 and the landing check. As he was doing the Landing Checklist; First Officer pointed out that we had a green light; but flaps were indicating 5. I verified this and though the airplane was handling like it was in final landing configuration; I checked the overhead and it showed leading edge devices were in the intermediate position. Not being able to verify which was true; called for a go around at 1;200 feet AGL and told Tower. Normal go around was accomplished and flaps retracted normally. As we flew the heading and altitude; discussed what we would do if flaps didn't come down. We discussed getting flaps to 10 early to make sure it wasn't a system issue; and everything worked and we accomplished a normal landing. QRH was looked at on the ground; trailing edge flaps disagree was followed with the go around; and with what was going on felt best option was to go around and start again.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a flap extension error on approach leading to a go around.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We received a message that we had hazardous materials in the form of 6.11 kg of lithium ion batteries in position 7L. This information was not included in our Haz paperwork. Cause: Information omitted.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported hazardous cargo omitted in the flight crew documents.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was involved in a landing incident at ZZZ where I lost my nose wheel; and had a prop strike after the gear was no longer attached. No issues happened prior during my flight; and the approach for landing all felt as normal. As I came to touch down; I flared as normal; and came down on my main gear; not on the nose wheel. After touching down; the plane began to porpoise. It did this twice after the initial time; however until the last one the nose gear never touched the ground as far as I could tell. On the last one; I came down on the mains again; and as the nose gear struck; the prop hit the ground; and I skidded down the runway. I came to a stop on centerline; on the runway. People from airport helped me move the plane off the active runway. I was a solo cross country student at this time; and have never had issues before this moment. I am not sure if the nose gear had previous damage; being that it is a rental aircraft used by mostly students; or if it was caused by the landing.




Synopsis: Diamond DA-20 student pilot reported a failure of the nose gear during landing; resulting in damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737-400
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A B737-400 was descending on a STAR and it was being vectored to final from the east. I had an ERJ-190 on a 190 heading and the B737 on a 130 heading expecting them to have the airport in sight. Previous aircraft had reported the airport in sight earlier with no problem. I asked the B737 to report the 'approach lights' in sight and he said he was searching. I had anticipated him being out of 6000 and 'approach lights' in sight in time so as not to be a factor with the ERJ-190. Don't anticipate aircraft getting the airport in sight. Use more positive separation when applying use of 30 degree intercept rule for simultaneous parallel operations.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a loss of separation event during parallel visual approach procedures when anticipating arrivals would report the airport in sight as prior arrival had done.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a call from a crew regarding their [time limit] en route. Called tracking to verify. Yes; crew was over their [time limit] by 23 minutes due to ATC reroute of 402 miles from their original route. I did not get an alert about [time limit]; so I asked the crew to take reroute and then ask for short cut once they get airborne just to get them off ground. The crew did and called regarding the reroute but did not advise the Dispatcher of being close to their [time limit] nor did I get an alert on my printer screen of [time limit].




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported they were not advised of a crew reaching the limitations of their flight duty time.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: C90 SOP requires aircraft to be on the monitor frequency to 16 NM from the runway threshold or the established 'capture points' when running triple monitors. During this session; a vast majority of the aircraft were shipped later than that; much less reported on local frequency. Each time it was a separation issue; I informed the person vectoring the runway by leaving my position; walking over to his position (2W; West Arrival); and quietly informing him the aircraft was not on frequency. I did it in exactly the same manner at LEAST 10 different times observed by numerous management personnel. I informed him in this manner because we were informed by management to do it this way because if they 'heard' us verbally coordinating; they'd have to do 'something' about it. I made the low side monitor aware of each situation but there was no action they could have taken to avoid a loss of separation. Had I been able to spend more time focusing on the final spacing; I could have prevented at least two go-around's I was forced to initiate to maintain separation since I didn't notice spacing was deteriorating until it was too late to do anything but send the second aircraft around. This isn't the first one of these I've been forced to fill out.




Synopsis: C90 Controller observed multiple technical separation problems when monitor controller's were not insuring the required frequency transfer stipulations.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B717 (Formerly MD-95)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We had a wake turbulence encounter at FL340 on an airway in the vicinity of ISO. We were in VMC and saw the other aircraft; a B-777; pass 1;000 FT above us going the opposite direction on the airway. Several seconds later the aircraft buffeted slightly; which is not unusual; but then the aircraft rolled about 40 degrees to the right. I disengaged the autopilot and put in opposite control inputs to correct back to a wings level attitude. At the same time; the airspeed footer rose to the aircraft's current speed and the stick shaker activated momentarily. The auto throttles increased power; the stick shaker stopped; and the footer quickly returned to where it had been before; so I did not feel the need to disconnect the auto throttles. We turned on the seat belt sign; and then called the flight attendants to see if they and the passengers were okay. They stated they were okay; and after checking with the passengers; no injuries were reported. When winds aloft are light; consider offsetting track slightly when passing heavy aircraft directly above.




Synopsis: B717 had a wake vortex encounter at FL340 with an opposite direction B777 at FL350.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Other Flight Planning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight was planned as normal. ZZZ required a takeoff alternate. I planned ZZZ1. As the crow flies its 218 nm and met the 250 nm and flap fail ad. But the routing to make it work used a V-airway down and around. Route was shy of 300 nm using V-airways. I figured that because the airport was still 218 nm; point to point; that the route was good. The cause of the event was miscommunication and misunderstanding of the takeoff alt flap fail ad between airports and which routes are acceptable. It may need to be brought to attention that planning this takeoff alternate or any takeoff alternate needs to have some clarifications. It is vague and can be confusing as to if a planned takeoff alternate route is legal point to point or flying around. I have looked (into) this and got opinions of supervisors that say it works. Now; as I was told of the event the route is as the crow flies and if we used v-airways or any other route that we would need to bring that to supervisor to input into [computer] for fuel planning that alternate route.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a communications breakdown between Dispatcher and Dispatch Supervisor regarding the legality & interpretation of a takeoff alternate distance regulation.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: VNY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On takeoff on the Canoga 1 departure I started to turn left to 100 degree heading. The departure requires a right turn. I have taken off from VNY and always turned left to 100. I did not clearly understand the Canoga 1 departure. We briefed it but I think I was preset at left to 100 and did not hear the right turn instructions or see them as I looked at the departure. I had the FMS set correctly and it is what prompted me to see my error. I had just started my left turn and saw the Needle turn right. At about the same time my First Officer cued me to turn right and the Tower also cued me to turn right. I corrected and we went on from there. We did not create a traffic problem. I think the #1 problem was my preset to turn left. It caused me to overlook the correct data. Contributing cause was a quick turn as we were a recovery flight. I did not feel we rushed at the time but I think I needed to take more time.




Synopsis: CE750 Captain reports turning the wrong direction initially departing Runway 16R at VNY on the Canoga 1 departure. Both ATC and the First Officer detect the error and the turn is quickly reversed back to the right.
Date: 201507
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Before push back we received our final weights and then pushed back for departure as per SOP. While taxiing to the runway; we received no less than four final weight adjustments. This was a distraction in attempting to sort out the actual weight and performance of the aircraft while attempting to accomplish pre departure duties. The last Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) was 134.0. We were then cleared for takeoff and were satisfied with the weight and performance of the aircraft. The takeoff roll seemed a little long and the rotation was achieved with about 2; 500 feet left on a 10;500 foot runway.Seven minutes after departure we received another update on our final weights. The weight increase was 3;500 Lbs. to ZFW of 137.5. We did the performance for a ZFW of 134.0 not 137.0. I believe the problem with this is obvious.


Second narrative: [Seven] minutes after takeoff; around 10;000 feet; we received an ACARS message giving us yet again; a new set of final weights with Zero Fuel Weight (ZFW) 137. This was an increase of 3;500 LBS with approximately 20 more passengers listed on the final weights. This post takeoff final weight increase caused us to use inaccurate and inadequate runway takeoff performance data. We contacted load planning and Dispatch via ACARS to confirm this new ZFW and PAX count. Once they confirmed; we manually loaded [the revisions] into the FMC for use during the remainder of the flight.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving 'final weights' about seven minutes after takeoff; showing an increase of 3;500 LBS.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I intended to taxi my aircraft northbound across Runway XX on the taxiway directly across from the fuel pit. (I don't recall the taxiway designator.) I looked to the east and saw an airplane in the run-up area for Runway XX. I started across the runway; just as I entered the runway I saw the airplane at [Runway] XX pull onto the runway and start a takeoff roll. I applied full throttle to clear the runway as quickly as possible. The other airplane got airborne well to the east of me; and cleared my path at an estimated 200 feet just as I exited the runway. I emphasize I was on the runway before the other airplane started his (her?) takeoff roll. There was no real conflict. Nevertheless; if the timing had been slightly different; or if I had not seen the other airplane as quickly as I did; things could have turned out differently. Since my airplane did not have an operative radio at the time; I do not know whether the other pilot made a radio call. ZZZ being an uncontrolled airport; many NORDO operations take place there. Next time I have to operate NORDO there; I will carry a handheld.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported runway incursion during taxi.