elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Fatigue; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Staffing; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Sector 39 was working Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y was deviating in to my airspace due to weather on its filed route. Aircraft X was a departure and I immediately noticed that Aircraft X and Aircraft Y would be a factor for each other so I took action to turn the Aircraft X to a parallel heading (heading 240) and gave Aircraft X a climb clearance to FL 280.Aircraft Y was climbing somewhat slowly out of FL250. I evaluated the vector and decided that the turn was not sufficient provide separation so I again instructed Aircraft X to turn to heading 230. At some point; I made a point out to sector 42 to climb the Aircraft X to FL 360. Instead of issuing the Aircraft X a clearance to climb to FL360; I issued the Aircraft X an instruction to fly a 360 heading. I believe that I simply made the mistake of moving too fast and making a simple error that I did not catch. The loss of separation then occurred.I believe fatigue was a main factor. I am a reservist in the [military] and currently am on a stretch of consecutive work days in a row between the two jobs. The FAA schedules me [multiple] days a week; and the [military] also schedules me to work in that same period of time. My schedule over the next [few] days only allows for [a few] days off between the two jobs. I also believe that stress caused by uncertainty about my military leave during the previous week was a contributing factor. I had military leave approved; and someone in management made an error and cancelled it erroneously. I had to scramble to make sure that my absences were excused. Pay attention to what you say. Slow down. I feel that had I slowed down my pace that I would never have made such an unusual error.




Synopsis: ZNY Developmental Controller issued a heading of 360 degrees to Aircraft X. Controller meant to climb Aircraft X to FL 360. The 360 degree heading put Aircraft X into conflict with Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y was deviating for weather on a different controller's frequency.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OKC.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E OKC
ATC / advisory: TRACON OKC
Second aircraft: Bonanza 35
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 25 miles northeast of OKC Airport; we were cleared to descend from 6;000 feet MSL to 4;000 feet MSL. At approximately 5;000 feet MSL; we received a TA alert and approximately 20 seconds later; we received an RA with a command to descend at 2;000 FPM. Upon reaching 4;000 feet MSL; a Beechcraft V35 crossed over the top of us at approximately 200 feet. I asked OKC Approach about the V35 and his reply was that the V35 was supposed to be at 5;500 feet MSL. I then inquired if the V35 was verified and OKC Approach said he was not. It appeared that the V35 was descending to a GA airport approximately 10-15 miles northeast of our position.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported an NMAC with a Bonanza during descent into OKC.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was CPC [Career Professional Controller] training an FLM-IT [Front Line Manager-In Training].  We had a Small Aircraft (Aircraft X) overflight at 090. Air Carrier X (Aircraft Y) departed.  Trainee climbed Aircraft Y up to 100.  There was plenty of room to turn Aircraft Y; so I did not have trainee amend altitude.  But then FLM-IT got distracted with traffic on the east side of the airport.  I prompted trainee to turn Aircraft Y.  FLM-IT keyed up; so I thought that is what FLM-IT was doing; then FLM-IT talked to other aircraft.  I still felt FLM-IT had time to fix it; so I prompted again a second time.  FLM-IT keyed up and talked to another same Air Carrier X (Aircraft Z) on the east side of the airport and not Aircraft Y that I was referring to.  Finally the third prompt FLM-IT talked to Aircraft Y.  I knew it was close to a loss of 3 miles; but thought FLM-IT turned Aircraft Y early enough; but it was not. When discussed after the session; FLM-IT did not hear me say to turn Aircraft Y. Which could have been because I was talking thru a mask and communication is muffled.When training I need to use full call sign with the numbers when telling the trainee to do something.  I kept saying turn Air Carrier X. We had more than one Air Carrier X that we were working.  So I need to be more specific. I can also just key up and turn the aircraft myself which I normally do if I feel like it is warranted.  I honestly thought she caught it early enough.




Synopsis: ATC TRACON instructor reported miscommunication with trainee resulted in an airborne conflict during a training session.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
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: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared to descend via...RNAV arrival. Selected 8;000 FT and descended in VNAV. ATC then gave us a runway change and requested we slow to 230 KTS. I selected Level Change and selected 230 KTS. I then selected the runway on the Electronic Flight Bag to determine how it affected the approach. ATC then queried our altitude and I realized I had descended below the profile in Level Change. I regained the profile and continued the descent.I believe there were multiple causes for this lapse: #1: I should have handed control to the First Officer while I studied the new approach. #2: Despite being an augmented crew of three pilots; neither of the other pilots spotted the discrepancy due; I believe; to fatigue. Because of the nature of this flight; the movies were being played over the PA system so that; even though we had a Class 3 seat for rest; none of us could get any sleep. #3: This was the third day of early starts and long days. #4: Distraction of a runway change.In the future I will make sure that I positively hand over control whenever I am not directly monitoring the aircraft; i.e. selecting and briefing approaches from the EFB etc. Also I will not assume my crew is rested just because we are legal and have three pilots.




Synopsis: B737 Captain descended below profile when an airspeed restriction from ATC prompted him to switch from VNAV to Level Change.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Check Pilot; First Officer; Instructor
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Approximately 19 miles southeast of the field; we were cleared direct to HADAN on a 270 heading to intercept the localizer to 36R; MEM; a false localizer intercept occurred. Aircraft turned about 20 degrees to the right before heading was corrected back to HADAN. We immediately reported this false localizer turn and correction to MEM Approach; and continued direct to HADAN as cleared. Approach Controller advised us this is a recurring problem with the ILS 36R. Possibly arm the localizer later.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew incorrectly intercepted a false localizer signal during approach to MEM.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C BUR; Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: BUR was landing Runway 8 and departing Runway 15. Weather was IFR in most spots of the sector. BUR Tower APREQed a Runway 33 departure over GMN for Air Carrier X. There was an IFR arrival on the VNY localizer for ILS Runway 16R. I called BUR to advise the approximate wait time and the Tower requested a heading of 310. Since the departure was a CRJ7; I approved the 310 heading and gave 6;000 FT for departure (rather than the LOA of 4;000 FT.) Air Carrier X checked on frequency and I believe I issued direct GMN; climbing to 13;000 FT; and pointed aircraft out to VLYR and MORR Sectors. Air Carrier X seemed to be climbing slower than anticipated and I asked if the pilot could maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance; pilot responded negative due to weather; and he was below the MVA. I turned Air Carrier X to a 240 heading to get to a lower MVA and told pilot he could expect direct GMN out of 6;000 FT. I anticipated the pilot was requesting Runway 33 and the 310 heading and I always try to accommodate the pilot when I can. Most likely; it was not the pilot requesting the heading. I should have simply denied the 310 heading because it is only 20 degrees left turn and still right at the 5;200 FT MVA. I recommend that I should have waited 1-2 minutes longer for the VNY ILS arrival to be out of the way; [and] then the higher MVA would not have been a factor.




Synopsis: SCT Controller described a MVA event involving a BUR IFR departure and traffic inbound to VNY. The reporter acknowledged waiting for the NVY prior to issuing the BUR departure release would have been a better option.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I split legs with this other 74-year-old Captain and I'm in the right seat. He slowly brings the power in and then we get the configuration callouts; red lights; yellow lights and white lights (pitch trim setting) and then he proceeds to ignore my 4 abort takeoff calls. Configuration red lights (trims and we were trimmed majorly nose down... After ignoring the aural; visual and vocal call outs; he rotated around 165kts - plus; muscled it into the air then couldn't keep altitude. Started 200/300ft descent at around 800/900ft. Told me he couldn't keep the nose up and ask me to help; so I took the airplane from him with a nose down attitude at over 250KTS; trim was inoperative; [I] used pitch trim bias to arrest the descent and elevator disconnect after that; never got back above 1;000 AGL. Brought it back around and landed. We completed the all necessary checklists. And when I called for 'trims' before takeoff... he said 'check'.  Rotated around max tire speed of 165. Then once airborne; while nosing down we're doing somewhere over 250; well past the red tape for flaps 8 degrees. That's when I took the airplane. I took the airplane and then delegated tasks to him while I flew us out of that situation. I got him to adjust power and adjust the pitch trim bias up; and engage elevator disconnect. While I kept us airborne.  I was speaking with ATC the entire time.  Wheels up to wheels down was 6 minutes.




Synopsis: Lear 45 Captain reported a loss of aircraft control during Takeoff/Liftoff due to failure of Elevator Pitch Trim failure. Pilot monitoring assumed aircraft control and executed a safe landing. Loss of control event was exacerbated by takeoff Pilot's failure to follow established takeoff procedures.
Date: 201510
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower APC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Over the past several months; Napa (APC) Tower has been issuing unattainable taxiway exit instructions to landing aircraft! Example: Foxtrot for RWY 18R and Echo for RWY 18L. Aircraft with the normal aim point to begin the flare will still possess a high speed. My concern is that a pilot; and especially a student pilot (of which there are many at APC) will attempt to comply with these instructions and enter the accident phase of flying! I have contacted APC Tower on each occurrence; but they still issue these instructions.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported that APC Tower is issuing turn off instructions late in the approach that are not attainable without prior planning. Typical instructions are to exit Runway 18R on Taxiway Foxtrot and Runway 18L on Taxiway Echo.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: Tower LGA
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff from LGA RWY 04 and at 1;500 feet in a turn to 360 degrees; I noticed a rectangular object; believed to be a drone about the size of a lunchbox; pass within the distance of our wingtip; at our altitude; on the right hand side of our aircraft.  It appeared to be traveling horizontally.  A collision was not detected from the cockpit nor was there evidence of one following a post flight inspection by the Captain. I reported the sighting to LGA Tower and Departure. The sighting lasted about one second.  No change to our flight path was initiated.  The Captain was flying and did not notice our encounter.  The current ATIS made note of unauthorized drone activity in the vicinity of the airport.




Synopsis: CRJ First Officer reported a NMAC while departing LGA airport with what he suspected was a UAV.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While doing a routine Transit inspection on Aircraft X; I noticed Number 3 & Number 4 MLG (Main Landing Gear) tires needed to be replaced.  Unable to do this task alone I notified my crew chief to send additional manpower to complete both tires efficiently. Three coworkers showed up.  One of my coworkers went to acquire all the tooling and parts needed for the tasks.  Once the Number 4 tire change started I pulled off the hubcap and proceeded to take the bolts out of the axel nut.  Another coworker loosened the axel nut and removed it.  [Two coworkers] removed the tire; and during the removal of the tire one of the wheel bearings fell out and landed on the ground.  Not thinking much of it; because this has happened quite often when I have seen 737 tires being changed; we continued on with the task.  The same two coworkers placed the new tire on the axel and began torqueing it.Something seemed off because the axel nut seemed to sit further in then it did before the new tire was placed on.  After reviewing the sequence of events; I felt like it had been done satisfactory and redressed the tire with its hubcap.  Number 3 tire was removed and replaced without any issue and I signed off the tires per the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual).  After leaving for the day and coming back into work that night I mentioned something being slightly off about the Number 4 tire change to another lead and asked if he had ever encountered this.  He knew a bit more about 737 tire changes then I had and mentioned that there is in fact a washer that sits immediately behind the nut which could have been overlooked when removing the tire and when it was put back together.  That's when I realized it must have been missing and it had probably been mixed up in the wheel bearing pieces that fell out in the initial removal of the tire from the axel.This was one of the few 737 tire changes I have been involved in; so this was pretty new to me.  Also I was not involved in the actual removing and installing of the axel nut and believed it was done correctly and per the AMM.




Synopsis: B737 Maintenance Technician reported reassembling the main landing gear wheel assembly incorrectly during a tire change.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System - Indicating and Warning
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff roll immediately after N1 reached full power; 90%; the MC light illuminated along with Ovid cowl-anti ice amber light on left engine. We aborted the takeoff and cleared runway. The light extinguished immediately with reduction of power. Airspeed achieved was less than 40 kts. I decided to run up the engine to see if it was temporary flicker or if it was a true overpressure in the cowl anti ice system. We did a static run up of left engine; with clearance from ground; to 80% N1. The light remained extinguished. I decided to return for another takeoff. Unfortunately; this takeoff ended in an abort as the cowl ice amber light illuminated at 85%.In hind sight; we probably should not have even done the run up and just returned to the gate. Even if I wasn't sure if it was a temporary flicker of a light; reintroducing high pressure to the cowl was probably not the safest choice.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an EICAS warning illumination on takeoff roll.