elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
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; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Arriving into MDW on the PANGG 3 STAR. I was the Pilot Monitoring (PM) on this leg. We were expecting vectors to the ILS 4R Approach as advertised on the ATIS. Upon contacting Approach; we were given 'fly transition to RNAV Y 4R Approach'. My First Officer (F/O) began the programming of the FMC while I was heads up. After he finished programming; I confirmed the waypoints on page 1 of the LEGS page. (I did not go to page 2 to see the discontinuity; VVMI.) Arriving over OLCYK IAF; I immediately realized we failed the right turn to the next fix; SAVRD. The F/O corrected the discontinuity error as quickly as possible and we began the turn. The Approach Controller queried our flight path and we informed him of our correction. We continued uneventfully.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported a track deviation occurred on the RNAV Y 4R Approach to MDW. A last-minute change to the clearance was cited as contributing.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Citation III; VI; VII (C650)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier X was on final for Runway XXR and was too high. He asked for 'S' turns which were approved and then asked to make a 360. The next traffic for Runway XXR was still on downwind; so there was plenty of room for the 360. There was traffic; aircraft Y for Runway XXL on a Visual Approach. I estimated that Air Carrier X would complete his turn to final for XXR well ahead of Air Carrier Y; I was wrong. I did not get aircraft Y to get Air Carrier X in sight or even issue the traffic to him. I got distracted by departure aircraft that were at Runway XXL and not ready to go. The next time I looked up; Air Carrier X had blown through the XXR final and was just slightly ahead of aircraft Y and I had not pointed out the traffic. I had aircraft Y get him in sight and have him maintain visual for the wake turbulence separation (Large and Small). This was all my fault; things were going smoothly and I was lulled into a sense of security. I should have been more aware of what Air Carrier X was doing/his location and issued the traffic.




Synopsis: Local Controller described a conflict event where an Air Carrier on final requested a 360 for altitude loss and eventually conflicted with following traffic on downwind; the reporter acknowledging a loss of situational awareness.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I entered 0.04 for dry ice instead of 0.4; crew caught mistake before scheduled block. I sent new correct numbers to the printer. Fuel burn change not significant enough to warrant further action. Cause: Incorrect data entry. Suggestions: Double-check all inputs.




Synopsis: Airline Dispatcher reported incorrect weight entered on aircraft Hazmat form. Corrected form subsequently submitted to flight crew.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: UES.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D UES
ATC / advisory: Tower UES
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During night visual approach into UES; aircraft triggered low altitude warning from Tower. Aircraft descended to 800 feet AGL and was in level autopilot engaged flight. Aircraft climbed 300 feet and continued approach with outcome never in doubt. SIC set lower altitude with autopilot still engaged; autopilot should have been disengaged and hand flown the remaining distance.Suggest more coordination with crewmember. Should have informed other crewmember that aircraft was still under autopilot control and that a lower altitude had been selected during the final mile of the visual approach.




Synopsis: Phenom 300 First Officer reported climbing in response to UES Tower issuing a low altitude alert during a night visual approach.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were ILS to both 4's; departing 4L. Local 2 departed a B757; which was off the departure end of 4R by the time Aircraft X was short final and began his missed approach. I was not confident in the performance of the Widebody to make a tight enough turn and thought that the planes would end up closer together; so I kept him on runway heading and as soon as I saw Aircraft Y was through 2;000 cleared him to that altitude. We had over 30 degrees divergence; 850 FT and increasing of altitude separation but the super had to fly through the flight path of the B757.This set up is difficult due to the flight path of the 4L departure crossing 4R departure end.


Second narrative: I was working Departure Local Control on the 4s and cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff while the Aircraft X; [a Widebody] was on a 3.5 mile final for Runway 4R. As Aircraft Y climbed out of 1;500 it turned right to a heading of 100; while in the turn Aircraft X went on a miss because of an unstable approach. Local Control 1 tried to stop the Aircraft X at 1;500 but the pilot could not comply. I then expedited Aircraft Y to climb; Aircraft Y was on a 100 heading and Aircraft X was on a 40 heading; but at a point it appeared the altitude was lost (850) and the Widebody flew through the flight path of the Aircraft Y. The 4s are a difficult setup at JFK because the departure has to cross the fight path of the possible miss approach.


Synopsis: Reporters state an aircraft went around due to unstable approach and flew into wake turbulence of another aircraft and which was also a distance of less than standard separation.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This safety report is to document a weight and balance training and compliance concern. Due to company enthusiasm to tanker fuel; I was faced with a situation of directing company operations to offload 610 pounds to reduce to our legal maximum weight for the flight. The company solution was to off load carry-on bags from cargo and bring them inside the aircraft cabin where they would no longer exist on the load manifest. I informed them this was not an authorized procedure. Different individuals made an earnest attempt to inform me that this was an authorized procedure. A young lady identified herself as part of the training department; informed me she trained this procedure; that it was directed and approved by management; etc. A second individual identified himself as management and told me it was a recent change and directed by managers above his level. I told both that I was happy to comply if either could show me the procedure in their company manuals. Neither could. I held my ground; 4 passengers were offered incentives to deplane; and we departed 35 minutes late and continued late the remainder of the day. Between discussions; I referenced the applicable FOM and FSM weight and balance sections. I found nothing to support the company position. I found nothing expressly forbidding it; either. I enforced my way based on my prior training and experience. I understand that [Company] and FAA rules change- sometimes many times. If I am wrong; I suspect that I am not the only pilot that missed or has forgotten the bulletin authorizing this procedure. I wish; in that case; to apologize to everyone. If I am correct; then we have a very serious compliance problem.Rule interpretation and training and inability of all concerned to reference the rule.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported he refused an attempt by ramp personnel to fix an overweight concern by moving carry-on bags from cargo compartment to the cabin.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While en-route on a VFR flight plan with flight following from Approach I noticed a persistent fuel smell in the cockpit. I told them I had a fuel smell in the cockpit and wanted to know the closest airport with ARFF and then did divert to that airport. ATC asked if I wanted to declare an emergency and I said yes because now I saw liquid dripping from behind the co-pilot's instrument panel. ATC provided me vectors and the ATIS at the airport even though the flight was in VMC conditions. After reviewing the emergency procedures I decided to make a normal landing and to the ramp rather than evacuate on the runway. Upon landing ARFF equipment followed me to the ramp as a precaution. I shut down and deplaned the passengers without further incident.




Synopsis: A PA31 pilot diverted under emergency conditions to the nearest suitable airport due to gas fumes and liquid leaks behind the instrument panel.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I experienced temporary blind spots in my vision while scanning for traffic as a CFII/safety pilot for my instrument student (pilot flying) while on an IFR flight plan. The cause of the event was 3 extremely bright solar towers located approximately 35 miles southwest of the Las Vegas VORTAC. We were being vectored off of V538 direct to Hector (HEC) VORTAC. When I was scanning for traffic to the south and west; I experienced temporary blindness; visual discomfort and distraction. I was unable to scan at all for about 5 minutes while my eyes recovered from the initial event; and I was also unable to safely scan for traffic anywhere near the direction of the solar towers (about a 90 degree sector from my 12 to 3 o'clock position) for about 10 minutes until we flew past the towers and they were behind us. On our return flight a few hours later; also on an IFR flight plan; we were actually vectored directly over the solar farm. This time; being more aware of the danger; I was able to avoid being blinded; but it was still impossible to scan in that general direction. Of note; the distraction was mitigated a little by flying directly to and over the solar farm; because the nose of the aircraft blocked more of the affected view from the cockpit and also we passed the towers quicker than flying around it. I don't know any way to prevent this from happening to anyone in the future if they are flying in the vicinity of the solar farm. I question the logic behind placing them in an air-traffic corridor near Class B airspace when there is a large amount of untraveled tracts of airspace all over southern CA and NV.




Synopsis: A small; low wing aircraft instructor pilot experiences temporary blindness after viewing solar arrays 35 NM southwest of LAS.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Pushed back from the gate and during the start attempt of the left engine we were initially unable to get any N3 rotation. Called Maintenance who came out and was able to get N3 rotation via a manual start from the ground. When we introduced fuel we got no light off and the engine would not start. We consulted the QRH and maintenance via the interphone who advised us to make further start attempts. Under the guidance of Maintenance we attempted purging fuel (dry motor) and restarting the engine two or three more times including switching igniters. When we exhausted all available options we pulled back into the gate and Maintenance came on board.We discussed the problem with Maintenance who then took over dealing with the problem. Nothing had been written in the book as of yet because the problem was ongoing and I was unsure of what the write up was going to be and assumed they would get the engine started and the appropriate logbook write up would be entered by myself or the maintenance personnel.The mechanic suggested that I could start the engine with passengers on board; but that the passengers had to be removed if he was to start the engine. My reply was twofold:1) This engine has been messed with for over half an hour. Multiple start attempts; air issues; etc. I felt it was not in a very stable condition and it was unwise to leave passengers on board given the state of the issue in progress and both the time it would take to repair and the potential safety issue.2)The mechanics (I believe there were 3) were working together and didn't need me to be in the mix further so I suggested we get everyone off the plane and just let them do what they need to do without interruption.We deplaned everyone and I left the aircraft. I was informed about 30 minutes later that the airplane had had an engine fire. No crew or passengers were on board and both my FO and I were in the terminal when the fire occurred.




Synopsis: Aircraft engine after pushback would not start after several attempts. Aircrew elected to return to the gate and call Maintenance. Troubled engine caught fire while Maintenance was troubleshooting.
Date: 201510
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Coming in on the FLIPZ1 arrival we set 6000 [feet] in the bottom for DOBSE for a north landing. We selected VNAV and it captured Vpath and flew the entire arrival on target while we were monitoring. Coming up on DOBSE the aircraft leveled off at 7000 [feet] and by the time we realized what the aircraft was doing; came up with an input; and applied the input we were already coming up on the fix. Approach queried us to ask us to confirm we were descending to 6000 [feet] and we said yes we were as we had initiated the descent moments before.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain reports crossing DOSBE at 7000 feet on the FLIPZ1 RNAV arrival to CLT; while the required altitude at DOSBE is 6000 feet. The aircraft was descending in VNAV with the autopilot engaged; which the Captain quickly changed to vertical speed to continue the descent to 6000 feet. The FMC was programed with the ILS 36L and with the first fix of WELET; the FMC was honoring the WELET altitude of 7000 feet.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CHD.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower CHD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed on 22L instead of 22R; Runway 22L had recently been repaved and looked like 22R. I had not flown into this airport during daylight hours since before the repaving; and lined up with 22L believing it was 22R. I was complacent due to having flown in and out of CHD many times over the years; and should have verbally confirmed the clearance and visually confirmed the runway on final.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported landing on 22L when he was cleared for 22R; mentioning that recent re-paving on 22L was a factor.