elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC; TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were given 50 NM out from CSN at FL 270 very late and were unable to make it down. ATC agreed that they had given it to us late and said descend to FL 270 then cross CSN at FL 190. After reaching FL 270 in Level Change; I started a descent to FL 190 in VNAV PATH and confirmed that VNAV PATH was engaged. As we were descending; I was crosschecking the arrival altitudes on the chart with the altitudes in the CDU. Then we were given a frequency switch from Washington Center to Potomac that was the wrong frequency. The Captain discovered that we were high at CSN and we quickly continued our descent to FL 190. Then the Captain got the correct frequency and checked in with Potomac. Neither controller spoke to us about being high at CSN.




Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew was cleared to cross 50 NM from CSN at FL270 too late to do so.  The subsequent clearance with an open descent to FL270; thence cross CSN at FL190 was programmed but the FMS failed to comply.  Attention diverted by a temporary loss of comm and; perhaps; an inappropriate VNAV mode selection resulted in a failure to comply with the CSN crossing.  ATC made no comment about the failure to comply.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMU.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D MMU
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were departing on the MMU7 Departure on the corner of my eye to the left I caught an object to what it looked like a small aircraft or possibly a drone. No TCAS nor any other resolution was activated and it was hard to judge the distance of the aircraft since it did not look like a normal aircraft but most likely a drone. We climb slightly above the departure top altitude very briefly and maintained slightly to the right of the aircraft; shortly after we went back to the altitude of departure and contacted Departure. We were busy to make a report as was ATC; controllers did not ask of any altitude concern or headings since we were there for a few seconds. ATC gave us vector headings and altitude assigned. No questions were asked but I wanted to make this report since this could be a problem if people continue to conduct drone activities close to an airport or other aircrafts.

Callback: Reporter had no additional information.



Synopsis: Turbojet air taxi pilots had a near miss with a UAS while on climb out which resulted in an altitude deviation in order to avoid the UAS.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAV.Airport, GA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SAV has an LOA with the US Army for R3005 airspace south of the SAV Runway 10 final; this LOA allows for the Army to utilize UAS's in the airspace and also allows for SAV Approach to take a portion of the airspace known as the 'Pembrooke call up area' when SAV needs to conduct IFR/IMC approaches to Runway 10 due to weather. SAV needed to do instrument approaches to Runway 10; but the Army denied the call up area due to its activity scheduled in R3005. SAV has to then [restrict] the air carriers; air taxi; corporate and general aviation aircraft to accommodate the Army's use of the restricted area. Prior to the UAS information; the FAA allowed us to go right up to the edge of the restricted areas; and the Army maintains a buffer within the airspace. The FAA's lack of understanding of UAS activity has required SAV to miss the airspace by THREE miles. That three mile buffer imposes onto the SAV Runway 10 final. We can't do approaches; aircraft get delayed; no one is happy and cross wind arrivals and departures are required to accommodate the FAA's misapplication of separation for aviation activities that are NOT a danger. Recommendation; smarten up and realize that the Army's inside buffer is adequate; or force the Army to increase the inside buffer; and/or reduce the FAA's required separation so we can provide a safe and efficient service to the SAV users.




Synopsis: SAV Controller voiced concern regarding the recently interpreted FAA separation requirements reference R3005 (UAS activity); noting the procedure unduly restricts SAV aircraft activity.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CAK.TRACON, OH
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E CAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON CAK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; 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: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After position transfer I went to check on the traffic. I noticed an untagged discreet beacon code at 70 over DALTS northeast bound. I asked the RADAR Controller who that was. His replied - no idea. I requested a full route on the beacon code to try and determine the aircraft identity. There was none in our system. I then tagged the aircraft with a point out tag and instructed the RADAR Controller to separate from him as though he was IFR. A few miles past ACO the aircraft called us. We had an IFR strip on him but with a different beacon code. He would have come from ZID to ZOB computer system. We changed his beacon code and successfully handed him off before he left our airspace. After discussion with CPCs they are unsure if they took the hand off and if so how the tag may have dropped. I do not believe separation was lost. After I instructed the CPC to provide separation; separation was provided. When aircraft cross over from Center to Center often beacon codes must be changed. Develop a method for facilities to access the neighboring Center computer to search for unknown or unrecognized beacon codes. Simply having a second FDIO labeled the appropriate Center in facilities that border other Centers would allow access to time critical information to help quickly solve/prevent situations such as these.




Synopsis: CAK Controller described an airspace incursion event when unknown/unidentified traffic appeared in his/her airspace; the reporter suggesting a process be developed to allow a search of an adjacent facility's data.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: Golden Eagle 421
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There was a TFR in place for fire fighting with airspace penetrating a significant portion of SAF's Class D airspace to the northwest. SAF ATCT called for release of Aircraft X stating he was ready to depart Runway 28. I gave approval for release and assigned an altitude of 15;000. I assumed that an 'as filed' clearance was my safest bet and that the Tower would ensure separation from the TFR as it was in their airspace and the filed flight plan was Eastbound away from the protected area. Shortly after authorizing release; the aircraft departed and checked in. He proceeded to question whether he should continue on runway heading or turn on course; which surprises me as he is flying directly toward the TFR; and ultimately violated separation standards for that airspace. After inquiring what the Tower gave him as a clearance; I ultimately explained that I wasn't able to provide course guidance since he was still well below my MIA. I eventually advised him to turn on course to avoid the TFR. The aircraft turned Eastbound and was handled otherwise without incident. When a TFR impacts airspace to this degree; some procedure needs to be worked up quickly to ensure separation. Even if it's an ad hoc set of initial departure headings or relevant ATIS information for pilots. This is the 3rd time I have personally experienced a pilot departing SAF under an 'as filed' clearance where the pilot has departed and not turned on course in a timely manner; thinking/waiting for ATC to provide additional instructions. Perhaps a mandatory ODP should be assigned for aircraft proceeding northeast/east/southeast bound out of SAF due to the terrain; but that wasn't so much an issue in this case. Ultimately; in this case; I feel the proximity of the TFR; combined with the departing Runway 28 put the aircraft at unnecessary risk of violating that airspace. Runway 28 should not be available for departures while this TFR is in effect.




Synopsis: ZAB Controller described a fire fighting TFR incursion involving a released IFR departure from SAF. The reporter noted no temporary procedures were in place to ensure clearance from the TFR airspace.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SF 340B
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At level-off FL200 we heard a loud sound from the front windshield. The right-hand (First Officer Side) windshield cracked. We notified ATC of the issue and requested a descent to 10;000 FT MSL and notified ATC that we would need to fly at approximately 170 KIAS the rest of the way to our destination. We contacting Dispatch through a nearby station's operations office to determine if the aircraft was structurally sound to make it to our filed destination. We determined that our filed destination was the most suitable airport because the inside window did not have any cracks; we did not have any pressurization issues; and weather was passing through most of the southwest was IFR with low ceilings and poor to nil visibility and we did not want to risk further strain on the windshield; from pressurization in the case of a missed approach. ATC was able to give us direct; to save time and distance with deviations around cells when required by us. The Captain flew the approach and landing; (due to the defect) and we were able to shoot a normal ILS and landing without incident.




Synopsis: A SF340B First Officer outer non-structural window pane cracked at FL200. The flight continued to the planned destination.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ALB.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ALB
ATC / advisory: Tower ALB
Aircraft component: Speedbrake/Spoiler
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On descent I had used the speed brakes to slow us down and then began to lower the flaps.  Before the gear came down I thought I had stowed the flight spoilers; however; I had only moved them to the 1/2 position.  With both of us concentrating on the crosswind landing; we missed the flight spoilers still partially deployed.  We made a stabilized approach at the bug with flaps 45 and gear down.  At 300 AGL the Captain had tried to cancel the configuration alarm using the GND PROX; which was sounding even though the aircraft was on glide slope and LOC. At the exact same time the 300 FT caution message went off for the spoilers.  The Captain thought the caution was associated with the GND PROX button; so he said to continue [the approach and landing].  It was not till we got to  the gate that we noticed that the spoilers were still deployed.  I made a rookie mistake by taking my hand off the flight spoilers when they were in use.  We should have verified the reason for the caution message we were canceling; even though the landing was imminent.




Synopsis: A commuter flight crew failed to retract their flight spoilers prior to landing despite an unsilenced configuration warning.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction
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; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On Date; ZZZ Approach had to close due to a COVID cleaning. The ZZZ [Center]/ZZZ [Approach] Contingency Plan; that has been agreed upon since Month X 20XX; was not adhered to. The Contingency Plan states that ZZZ should DO this first.Cleanse the airspaceRe-route/Divert/HoldUse traffic management initiativesNo divestment expectedGround stop all departures for ZZZ2 area airportsI believe that the Contingency Plan should have been adhered to. If adjustments need to be made; they should have been made after the occurrence. The plan could have been collaborated and trained.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported that the ZZZ Center Contingency Plan was not followed for COVID -19 ATC cleaning of an underlying Approach facility.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PWM.TRACON, ME
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C PWM
ATC / advisory: TRACON PWM
Second aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Glider; Flight Crew Sport / Recreational
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying (Aircraft X) as wingman in a formation of 2 aircraft. The lead aircraft (Aircraft Y) was in contact with PWM Approach for flight following while we were in cruise at 4;500 MSL. I was speaking to my lead on 123.45 and squawking standby at the request of ATC. As we were about to overfly the PWM Class C airspace; we suddenly saw a CRJ immediately off my left wing and what I would estimate as maybe 200-300 vertical separation. The aircraft was close enough that I was easily able to read '[Company]' on the side of the aircraft. I was unaware at the time of the traffic as I was not personally speaking to Approach controllers. After the event; I called PWM Approach on the telephone to discuss it and make sure no action was needed. The controller stated that we had 500 feet separation and nothing was needed from us.Later; after speaking with my Lead Pilot; and listening to audio of the ATC from liveatc.net we were able to piece together what had happened. The [commercial] flight had been cleared up to 4;000 feet on their climb; presumably to provide separation from us at 4;500 feet. My Lead Pilot had been given a traffic alert by approach and the same had been done to the [commercial] flight for us. My Lead Pilot reported them in sight after they were already past us as neither of us saw them until the last second. No evasive action was needed. We did later find out from the ATC audio that they had received an RA (Resolution Advisory) from their TCAS (Traffic Collision Avoidance System) system which they reported to the Controller. The controllers did not tell me this when we spoke on the phone. The largest concern from this event is that we had been instructed about 10 minutes prior to the event to maintain VFR at or above 3;500 feet; and the [commercial] flight had been cleared to climb through the altitude restriction that we had been given. Had we decided to start a descent from 4;500 feet at any point between then and the miss between us and the [commercial] aircraft; the results would likely have been much different. It is our opinion that the [commercial] aircraft was not in 500 feet separation from us; although that is a visual judgement and cannot be confirmed. We do not know if they exceeded their cleared altitude. To the best of our knowledge no formal reporting is being performed by [commercial]; ourselves; or ATC.




Synopsis: Sport pilot reports near miss with air carrier aircraft.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Approaching from the West at 3;000 feet; I was cleared for the Visual Approach Runway 3R from Approach and told to contact tower. After I contacted tower; I was cleared to land Runway 3R. When I started my visual approach I saw a C-130 circling North of me clockwise. Then I got a TCAS alert and noticed the C-130 was going right underneath me. I'm guessing he was at 2;000 feet and I was at 2;300 feet. I leveled off until he went under me; then made my landing on Runway 3R.




Synopsis: A Captain of a corporate aircraft reported an airborne conflict; and subsequent RA; while conducting a visual approach.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff at about 500 feet AGL; we had severe engine shutter. CHT (Cylinder Head Temperature) #2 & #3 redlined. I immediately took flight controls and queried ATC for a precautionary landing. Tower gave me runway XXR and I landed the aircraft. On the ground the CHT temps went back into the yellow. I began to taxi back to the ramp. When I was about to cross RWY XY/XZ; both went back to red. I asked ATC to taxi to the southeast ramp and shut down the engine. When I entered taxiway Uniform; CHT #3 went blank. I proceeded to shut down the aircraft. Contacted Dispatch and towed aircraft back without incident.

Callback: Reporter is unsure of the cause; but the SR20 is known to have overheating problems.



Synopsis: SR20 flight instructor reported high cylinder head temperatures on takeoff resulted in a return to the departure airport.