elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZFW called to coordinate Aircraft X on a 310 heading and level at 4000. I did have [air carrier] arrival traffic and two other arrivals; ongoing to FTW and the other going to AFW. The data tag was not correlating with the target for Aircraft X so to take radar contact I called the ZFW sector back for position and altitude. I was told again heading 310 for Dodge intersection and I confirmed level at 4000. When Aircraft X checked on he reported on the heading and level at 6000; which I did not hear 6000 because I was thinking he was level at 4000. Aircraft Y was the arrival after Aircraft X both of these aircraft are flying along the same airway to get to the west side of our airspace. I descended Aircraft Y to 6000; above Aircraft X still thinking he was level at 4000. I did have Aircraft X try to recycle his transponder on initial call to see if that would help acquire the data tag of target and it did not help. I even put an additional reminder of his altitude; 4000; on his data block so I would know and so the receiving controller would know that was their altitude. When Aircraft X finally did start to acquire with the target I saw an altitude of 6000. I then asked him what his altitude was and he replied 6000. I immediately called the supervisor over and let him know. I called ZFW to confirm with them that he was supposed to be at level at 4000. This was an event because I failed to hear on the initial call that he said he was at 6000. Even though controllers are coordinating and telling you the information that you 'Need' to know. We still need to listen carefully and ensure that the aircraft checking in with us are confirming the information that we are given through coordination.




Synopsis: D10 Controller reports of an aircraft that is having problems with the altitude portion of the Mode-C that is being displayed on his scope. The Controller thinks he issues the aircraft 4;000 which it is supposed to be at but aircraft is level at 6;000. Another aircraft is level at 6;000; the Controller thinks they are separated but they are at the same altitude.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Night VMC conditions; 30
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The event occurred on a flight between ZZZ and ZZZ1. We had been delayed multiple times at our base of operations due to mechanical issues and eventually were switched to a different aircraft that became available late in the day. Throughout the rescheduling and refiling/updating flight plans we had taken consideration of our duty time and had set a latest takeoff time from base that would allow us to complete our flights and return to base before the end of our duty time. However in all that I failed to consider night landing currency for carrying passengers. It was not until after we had picked up our passenger and were enroute to ZZZ1 and the sun had set that the FO (pilot flying) looked at me and said that he couldn't make the landing as he was not night current. Then I realized I was not night current either. At this point we realized it was too late and continued to our destination. I had the FO do the landing which in retrospect as PIC I should have shown more initiative in taking full responsibility by taking the landing instead of putting the FO in the position of making a landing out of currency.A contributing factor is that in the past I have seldom carried passengers for my employer. Most often I am doing other type of flying with only required crew on board due to the aircraft being in the restricted category. But I have more recently been doing an occasional passenger carrying flight where I have to think about passenger carrying currency more. Also due to economic slow down there has been less opportunity to keep up currency especially night currency with our normal operations. For corrective actions I have made a checklist for myself that goes in my knee board specifically for passenger carrying flights; because they are so infrequent; that lists the pertinent things that should be considered during pre-flight and more specifically the more pertinent things like passenger carrying currency. This will be a checklist that I see when I open my knee board prior to flight and work through at the latest; just before engine start.




Synopsis: Corporate Captain reported neither crew member was current to make a landing on a night flight and realized it after they had departed.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: 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; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The flight was a practice flight in the pattern for left traffic Runway XX. After touchdown; the aircraft lost stability and the tailwheel aircraft ground looped and the right wing tip and aileron contacted the ground. I was able to have the aircraft inspected by a [maintenance technician] today to determine if there was any damage to the aircraft. He determined that only cosmetic damage occurred and that it was airworthy and that no substantial damage occurred. I plan to contact the manufacturer for further information and to repair the cosmetic damage.Lesson learned: Execute a go-around as soon as the aircraft is unstable.




Synopsis: The pilot of a tailwheel aircraft reported a loss of control on landing that resulted in a ground loop and the wing contacting the ground.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Visual approach to 28R SFO; with fog approaching airport from the west; advised aircraft in position; at less than 200 FT told to go around maintain 3;000 FT and fly heading 265; as we pulled nose up and reconfigured aircraft prior to turn we were startled to see climbing aircraft ahead and slightly to our left and we were closing quickly on them. We felt a left turn to 265 would put us to close to that aircraft and refused to turn; ATC then gave us a 310 heading that we over turned by 30 degrees due to our attention being diverted to watching our very close traffic and the rapidly rising terrain directly in front of us on the 310 heading.




Synopsis: Air Carrier landing SFO Runway 28R was issued a go-around on short final heading 265; the reporter observing traffic ahead; elected to turn right; and then noted rising terrain directly in front.
Date: 201912
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After pushback and the salute from Spot XX; vehicles were bumper to bumper not giving way to us on the service road even with our taxi lights on. I turned on the fixed landing lights and vehicles still do not stop. We had to wait until there was a break in traffic to taxi-out. The scimitar wing could impact a catering truck.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a near collision with a catering truck during taxi out.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: K90.TRACON, MA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW; TRACON K90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were to operate a ferry flight from ACK to AVP.  The clearance received from KACK ATCT was an 'As Filled' clearance.  The filed routing was DCT CMK DCT HUO DCT.  Upon departure Cape Approach assigned us a northerly heading direct LFV when able.  We mentioned that LFV was not on our filled routing.  Cape Approach queried us which clearance we received.  Once informed of the 'As Filled' clearance; Cape Approach gave us a new heading and a handoff to ZBW; I believe it was ZBW Center; but not sure whether it was Center or Approach -- and to expect a re-route from the next Controller.  Upon change of frequency we received a re-route that added about 50 NM to the routing; DCT PVD DCT CTR DCT DNY DCT LAAYK DCT.  Upon query; ZBW clarified that the filled routing was an invalid routing for these two airport pairs; and that the Center failed to notify ACK ATCT.  I wanted to make sure the Company reviews the Northeast routings for accuracy and validity; the next routing wasn't valid either on the AVP to GON airport pair.  Secondly; I wanted to point out an apparent break in communications between the ARTCC and the ATCT in this case.  It may have been a one time event; but if not; I wanted to point a potential safety problem.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of incorrect routing for two airports pairs and wanted to make others aware of the problem.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I took manual coordination from Piarco Center for Aircraft X at FL400. In the coordination window I entered time XA23 for position GLAAS. Once the positon report became overdue the next controller requested the position report. At which time the aircraft showed a Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) position report discrepant from what Aircraft Y was protecting. The controller verified the position again realizing the GLAAS progress was XA33+10. A conflict with Aircraft Z became apparent and the controller took action to solve it. Always pay attention to the 'blue data' and the read back. I recommend full Air Traffic Services Inter-facility Data Communications (AIDC) implementation with Piarco Center. Automated coordination can alleviate these issues.


Second narrative: Aircraft X had coordination time of XA23 at GLAAS at FL400. Routing GLAAS to 23n050w. Aircraft X progressed at XA33; after confirming that it was the actual progress; The data block jumped back ten minutes which then put the aircraft in conflict with Aircraft Z which was westbound from 20n50w to GLAAS at FL400. At this point we took corrective action to descend the Aircraft X to FL390.If we were on line with Piarco we would not have had this incident. Which is exactly what I asked for 25 years ago when a similar situation happened. Here is progress for you.


Synopsis: New York Center Controllers reported a bad progress report on an aircraft that put it in conflict with another aircraft. Both reporters requested a land line to the foreign ATC Center.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: IFR clearance was received in the air from Center. Initial clearance was as filed with a climb to 9;000 feet. (That climb was revised to 7;000 feet by Approach due to traffic.) Shortly after a handoff to Approach and while climbing through 5;000 feet; both NAV/COM radios (Garmin 530W/430W) displayed a message indicator simultaneously. At the same time; a subtle static noise came through the headset. Within seconds of the message/static; smoke appeared in the cockpit along with a strong smell of an electrical fire or short circuit. I switched off the autopilot and made a turn to the north while beginning a rapid descent. Based on my position; I knew there were two airports and flat terrain to the north/northeast. ATC gave me vectors to the nearest. After stabilizing the descent; I used the 'nearest' function on the Garmin 530W and chose ZZZ. That airport was 3-5 miles further than the nearest; but I was more familiar with the airport and the surrounding area. It also had a longer runway for a downwind landing and terrain short was suitable for an off-field landing. The electrical smell and smoke cleared in about 30-60 seconds after it appeared. I leveled off around 800 feet AGL. At around 7 miles; the airport came into view. I performed a downwind landing to the north. Touchdown and rollout were normal. I contacted Approach clear of the runway and notified them that I had landed without incident. Post flight inspection revealed the Garmin GTX 330 transponder had failed internally with indications of heat visible on the main circuit board. At least two areas showed charring/melted solder. The fuse on the main fuse panel did NOT trip. Garmin GTX 330 was installed in February 2013 and had around 250 hours of flight time in service since new. Unit has been returned to Garmin for warranty service.




Synopsis: PA32 pilot on an IFR flight plan experiences smoke in the cockpit and diverts to a suitable airport with the aid of ATC. Post flight inspection revealed that the transponder had failed internally.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just after departing ZZZ; heard F/A's on cabin inter phone complaining of an odor in the cabin.  About that same time; the FO and myself noticed an electrical/plastic melting odor in the cockpit.  Performed Avionics Smoke procedure in the QRH.  Smell dissipated after selecting Blower and Exhaust fans to override and turning off cabin fans and galley equip. Confirmed odor was dissipating with the cabin crew; so after some discussion; we decided to continue to ZZZ1.  Talked with dispatch and Maintenance Control; filed out fume event report.  We [advised ATC] to minimize delay getting into ZZZ1 and as we begun defending thru 10;000 ft; the fumes returned.  FO and myself both donned out oxygen masks and got the a/c on the ground in ZZZ1 as quickly as possible.No casual factors involved. About a serious event as can be!Unsure where the actual source of fumes came from.


Second narrative: After departing ZZZ; heard F/A's on cabin inter phone complaining of an odor in the cabin.  About that same time; the CA and myself noticed an electrical/plastic melting odor in the cockpit.  Performed Avionics Smoke procedure in the QRH.  Smell dissipated after following QRH and selecting Blower and Exhaust fans and turning off cabin fans and galley equip. Confirmed odor was dissipating with the cabin crew; so after some discussion and already having ZZZ1 as nearest suitable airport; we decided to continue to ZZZ1.  Talked with Dispatch and Maintenance Control; filled out fume event report.  We [advised ATC] to minimize delay getting into ZZZ1 and as we begun defending thru 10;000 ft; the fumes returned.  Both crewmembers donned oxygen masks and got the a/c on the ground as quickly as possible.'


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported an uneventful landing at destination after experiencing a fumes event noticed throughout the aircraft.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Cloudy; 2.5
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While executing an ILS approach we were on course and glidepath. The aircraft was accumulating a fair amount of ice (moderate icing in clouds). While trying to achieve final configuration at 170 knots indicated; I called for flaps 25. At that time; we both noticed the top of the amber speed bar at 170 knots. Both of us thought that our static ports or pitot tubes were icing up. A go-around was initiated. With the addition of go-around power and the nose of the aircraft pitching up; we received an 'Airspeed Low' alert followed be a brief stick shaker. I initiated a normal recovery and we were cleared by ATC to 11;000 ft. With the aircraft cleaned up; we decided the best course of action would be to go to our alternate. We then did a normal climb to FL250 and when we were trying to trouble shoot our problem that is when we noticed that the flap indicators were at 0 but there was a small split in the needles so; we realized we had a flap asymmetry and then we performed the QRH checklist for flap asymmetry. All indications were that the flaps were up but as a precaution we slowed to 250 KIAS and descended to FL200.Near the alternate; we slowed and positioned flap lever to 1. The flaps did not move so we realized we would have to do a zero flap landing. The QRH and OPC were complied with and we performed a successful 0 flap landing.  We also requested to have CFR standing by when we landed; and to follow us to the gate and to inspect our brakes before parking at the gate.  Passengers were kept informed during the entire time.




Synopsis: Flight crew reported that while cleaning up the aircraft on a missed approach they experienced a flap malfunction presumably caused by moderate icing. The crew elected to divert and landed flaps up.