elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Second aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Misapplication of the new wake recat rules. The PA24 departed RWY30L/D approximately the same time the B787 departed RWY30R/A1. I believed that it was correct to depart the PA24 from RWY30L/D if the PA24 were to make an immediate turn away from the simultaneous departing B787 from the parallel runway; from full length; under the new wake recat rules. The PA24 departed RWY30L/D and made the immediate left turn away from the B787 as instructed. The PA24 was airborne and had turned away from the departing B787 before the rotation point of the B787. A coworker who was training another developmental on ground notified me of my misapplication of the new rules. I was also working the CIC position; and I had just relieved another controller from the local position who had exceeded two hours on position.A contributing factor to this occurrence is the chronic understaffing of our facility. If I were not required to work CIC on local; the CIC might have pointed this mistake out to me as it were about to occur. Instead; I was working CIC from the local position.




Synopsis: San Jose Tower Controller reported misapplying new wake recategorization rules and having a loss of separation. Reporter stated staffing issues and having to work local combined with Controller in Charge duties contributed to the event.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Tower, CO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was switched to me outside of the outer marker on a straight in instrument approach for 35L due to us being in a TRIPPS [three simultaneous runways] North Configuration due to the weather. The TRACON had monitors in place so they had control of all of the aircraft up until a mile final to the runway. Even though they were on my frequency final monitor had override capability to give instructions to aircraft. I saw that Aircraft Y was on base executing an RNAV Approach to 34R. Because this is a hot spot situation where aircraft are often pointed at each other before turning final I was paying attention to it. I witnessed Aircraft Y fly past the 34R final and point directly at the path of my Aircraft X with only a couple hundred feet difference in altitude. I immediately issued traffic because I did not have control of the aircraft in this airspace. Aircraft X's pilot came back and advised that he was executing a RA maneuver. Only after this did the Final Monitor key in; issue a traffic alert; and tell the Aircraft X's pilot to climb (which he had already advised he was doing). At the time I issued the traffic advisory the Aircraft Y target was about 20% past 34R in reference to 35L. This is a tough one because it happens more often than it should in IFR and VFR conditions and nothing really seems to come of it. I believe that the controllers at the TRACON should be trying to not point aircraft directly at each other whenever possible in these conditions. Also the Final Monitor is in there for one job; to watch that one final. I don't know what else they are doing but I don't believe that I should be seeing it before they see it.




Synopsis: Denver Tower Controller reported a loss of separation between two aircraft on final while running three simultaneous runway configuration.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: Tower BUR
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Y was on Visual Approach to Runway 33 coming from the south. They checked on and were cleared to land. Aircraft X was on visual approach to the airport to follow aircraft Y. As aircraft Y was coming in to the airport; it became apparent that they were not lining up for Runway 33 as they got closer to the airport. It appeared they were heading to the west side of the field for a close-in right base to Runway 8. The Local Controller then queried them and they said that they'd lost sight of the airport. (Visibility was 10/SKC so we did not expect this to happen.)We cannot vector IFR aircraft due to the fact that we do not have a Diverse Vectoring Area (DVA); so all the Local Controller could do was tell them to start a climb to 4;000 feet and call out where the airport was. Over the airport they called the airport in sight and asked if they could re-join a right downwind for Runway 33; which was approved. Aircraft X was turning about a 4 mile final at this time and as aircraft Y continued on the downwind; she appeared to be turning right into aircraft X's way and pinching in on the downwind; possibly due to strong winds. I was Controller in Charge and I told the Local Controller to cancel aircraft X's approach clearance and start him climbing immediately; which Local Control did; but again we can't vector IFR aircraft here; so the Local Controller could only tell aircraft X to continue inbound toward the airport and couldn't turn him away from aircraft Y. The targets nearly merged at the same altitude. We had both aircraft in sight. We need a DVA at BUR.




Synopsis: BUR Tower Controller reported an aircraft from the west was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 33 while a second aircraft was cleared straight in to Runway 33. When the tower sighted the aircraft from the west the aircraft appeared to be entering a base leg for Runway 8. The Local Controller asked the pilot to clarify their intention and the pilot advised they no longer had the airport in sight. The Controller climbed the aircraft to 4;000 feet.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Airport; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was upwind in the traffic pattern. Aircraft Y was in the pattern following Aircraft X. I was working Local Control. I anticipated Aircraft Y was turning in sooner than the typical pattern so I told Aircraft X to start his go around for Aircraft Y in trail of him. Aircraft X started his go around and was at approximately 80 feet on the upwind offset left of the runway when the Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X) alarmed. The ASDE-X didn't alarm until Aircraft Y had already touched down. Also when the ASDE-X alarmed it said runway occupied instead of runway go around. I did not issue the Go around instructions to Aircraft Y because he had already landed and was following thru on his touch and go. The ASDE-X alarmed when Aircraft Y was between taxiways which was much too late for reasonable go around instructions to be issued. The ASDE-X is a constant problem and go around instructions should not be required due the inaccuracy of the system.




Synopsis: A Tower Controller reported allowing an aircraft to land even though the Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-X) alarmed for preceding go-around traffic.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 15 minutes prior to descent into ZZZ we were informed that a passenger heard a pop and smelled something electrical in the vicinity of row 22. Initially the flight attendants could not verify an odor. As we began our descent; a few more passengers smelled an odor and it was confirmed by one of the flight attendants.  We ran the smoke; fire; and fumes checklist to step X at which point the fumes had dissipated. At no point was any smoke ever noticed and the fumes were only confirmed by a few passengers. By the time we completed the checklist and the odor was gone we were in the terminal area at ZZZ. We elected to land at ZZZ and taxi to the gate as the odor was gone and no evidence of smoke or fire existed.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a fume event at top of descent.  Fumes dissipated before completing the appropriate checklist with no evidence of smoke or fire.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MCO.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground MCO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While we were starting our initial taxi after the pushback; a catering truck approached us (from left to right) at a fairly high speed and without any apparent regard to our position and the left hand turn we had started.   Their speed and proximity were so concerning we had to abruptly stop and wait for him to continue.  He did so with no apparent hesitation or change in speed or direction.   We needed a fairly large left hand turn and were fearful our right wing was an impending conflict.  I called back to Ops to please notify the driver but was not sure that process is worthwhile or fruitful. I did submit a note to Chief so that this can be addressed in a timely manner.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reports having to brake to avoid a catering truck during initial taxi off the gate.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ERI.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class E ERI
ATC / advisory: TRACON ERI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While loading the flight plan out of ERI I loaded the wrong initial fix; instead of YARRK; I entered YAARK. YAARK is very similar in spelling and distance but it is to the east of ERI instead of the west. During climb-out we were given a right turn direct YARRK but we made a big right turn to the east towards YAARK. ATC asked where we were going; we realized something wasn't right and asked for a heading towards the correct fix and corrected our error. The flight continued safely without further incidence.The fixes are very similar in spelling and location; it is hard to recognize this error.




Synopsis: Departing out of ERI; the pilot inadvertently entered YAARK instead of YARRK into the flight plan; resulting in a heading deviation after takeoff.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying a practice GPS approach to RWY 35. Shortly after my CTAF announcement that I was on a 5 mile final for RWY 35; another aircraft announced taxi to RWY 35 for departure. I maintained radio contact with the other aircraft and we exchanged information several times as to location and status. With less than 3 miles from RWY 35; the other aircraft reported it had sufficient time to take off before my arrival on RWY 35. I was intently focused on being sure that there would be no risk of collision and was preparing to go-around when the other aircraft reported it was airborne off RWY 35 and making a left turn to the west; so I elected to continue on for landing. Due to the distraction of dealing with the other aircraft; I failed to confirm that my landing gear was fully extended. In fact it was only partially extended; and this resulted in the propeller hitting the runway. After landing I noted that the landing gear circuit breaker had popped; which prevented a full extension of the landing gear. There were no injuries.




Synopsis: A C-210 pilot landed with partially extended gear after he failed to notice the circuit breaker popped. He was distracted by communicating on CTAF with traffic departing from his destination runway immediately in front of him.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While instructing my trainee; we observed Aircraft X climbing into prearranged airspace without required display of a full data block.When controllers don't follow the procedures for prearranged airspace then I cannot be assured that that controller is quick looking my traffic properly. Plus; I need a data block when others are using my prearranged airspace; especially while instructing a trainee. This is just more of the same attitude held by D10 controllers who are too lazy and prideful to follow procedure.




Synopsis: D10 Controller reports of another controller not utilizing the PACP correctly by not displaying the full data block while in the airspace.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IWA.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: PHX was on west flow with a high arrival rate. A large storm from the southeast was rolling in with a dust storm north of it heading towards IWA. I had two IFR inbounds that IWA Tower approved to land opposite direction because the dust storm was now on a 7 mile final. My next two IFR inbounds did not want to attempt the active runway so IWA changed runways. I was making point outs to the finals sectors to go further north than usual because of the dust storm.At the time I got a handoff Aircraft X was issued a 170 heading and 10000 feet. Aircraft X was on vectors in a box holding pattern waiting for pilot to say intentions. IWA now had 1/2 mile visibility. Aircraft X didn't respond to the initial heading and altitude I issued as I moved on to another clearance for a different airplane. Aircraft X came back and asked for a southbound heading for weather. I reissued 170 heading and 10000 feet. I heard the read back and moved on. A few minutes later I realized he was at 8200 feet in the 9800 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude. I asked Aircraft X for their current altitude and to say assigned altitude and to stop his descent. He responded with 7000 feet as his assigned altitude. After listening to the replay; the pilot was issued 10000 feet and read back 7000 feet. I then climbed him back to 10000 feet and continued holding for a few more minutes until he diverted. The Low Altitude Alert never went off.




Synopsis: P50 Controller vectoring an aircraft in a holding pattern reported an aircraft assigned 10;000 feet read back 7;000 feet and descended to 8;200 feet which was below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Response to an RA in the vicinity of Sussex (FWN) and West Milford (4N1) airports around the SAX VOR. We were at 4000 ft on vectors for the Runway 19 approach into TEB.  ATC cleared us to descend to 3000 ft.  In the descent we got a TA for traffic at our 10 o'clock 200 ft. below us. We arrested the descent at about 3600 ft. ATC also issued us a traffic alert for the same target. We queried ATC about the traffic.  We then got a descend RA command to which we responded. We observed a low wing single engine aircraft fly over our Captain side Direct View window at approximately 100 ft [lateral distance].  We alerted ATC to the RA response he said he was not talking to the traffic. We then proceeded to TEB without further incident.




Synopsis: EMB-135 First Officer reported an NMAC in the vicinity of FWN and 4N1 airports on arrival to TEB.