elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA; TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Workload
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; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While working the radar position on Sector 05; we were feeding Miami Approach all of the arrivals through one fix.  Every single airport in Miami Approach's airspace was being fed through the FAMIN ATA due to weather.  Aircraft X was level at 100 and Approach had the handoff with communication.  I had initially vectored Aircraft Y northbound due to the overtake he had on Aircraft X.  I waited till we had about 10 miles in between the aircraft and then proceeded to clear Aircraft Y inbound towards CURSO to cross CURSO at 100 and 210 knots.  I noticed that Aircraft Y was catching Aircraft X and I tried to stop him at 110 but he had already descended through 110.  I verified that he had reduced to 210 knots and proceeded to ship him to Approach.  At this time separation was less than 5 miles but approach was already talking to Aircraft X and I am uncertain of what type of rule they were using to separate the two aircraft.  My Supervisor told me that Approach might have been using a legal vector in order to maintain their separation standards. Everytime that there is weather over the SSCOT and JINGL arrivals; the procedure is to send all of the arrivals to the FAMIN ATA.  All of the aircraft have to cross the same fix at the same altitude and we pretty much have an air show every time trying to sequence 4 arrivals into 1.  Most of the time during the summer months; we not only get the arrivals from the north but we also get the arrivals from the east coast and then we have to try and sequence 6 arrivals in through 1 fix.  I always hear everybody complaining about this; but nothing has ever been done to remedy this situation.  Maybe we can incorporate a different procedure so that one controller doesn't have to be overloaded with this type of workload. There is more than enough space in approach to at least make another ATA for situations like these.  As far as the overtake with Aircraft Y and Aircraft X; if I wouldn't had been so busy trying to sequence all the arrivals; I would have shipped Aircraft Y as soon as they took the handoff and their would be no doubt in mind that approach was using some type of divergence rule to separate the aircraft.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller reports of traffic being funneled over one fix causing an operational error issue to speed differences.
Date: 201812
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Filed on the COMIX 2 STAR and slowed and level at FL220. We received slow to 250 and descend to 15;000 then handed off to next controller. We were slowed and just descending through FL218 and the new controller said climb back to FL230. When questioned he says climb to FL220. We received multiple delay turns and at one point were over 9;000 FT high on the profile for the COMIX; then cleared to LEJEN. We were never cleared to descend via the COMIX 2. Next controller seemed to think we were cleared in some form on the COMIX; but we informed him negative we were not. So we were turned on a high wide downwind and slowed to 210. We get descended to 7000; 6000; and finally 5000 on the downwind and well past the field. We were then turned direct VYDDA and descend to 4000; cleared for the RNAV. We were then re-cleared for the approach but from a 240 heading and 4000. The distance from VYDDA was 5-7 miles still. When descending out of 4500 ft ATC advised us Low Altitude Alert and told us to climb to 5000. As we were climbing through 4800 he re-cleared us for the approach at 4000. We descended to 4000 and continued to VYDDA. We received no warnings from the aircraft of any terrain issues whatsoever. So my First Officer questioned ATC what that was all about. ATC replies that he cleared us for the approach too early. We then got handed off to Tower and continued the approach to landing.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert on arrival into SAN after descending to ATC cleared altitude.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was cleared for a visual approach to Runway 34. At 1;100 FT AGL I received a ground proximity warning indication on the PFD. I immediately leveled off. I realized that the glideslope was not captured and I was still in FPA mode at a 3 degree path down. After I level off I captured the glideslope and landed safely. When I armed the approach I should have verified the FPA I choose would intercept the glideslope. In this case it should have been at a reduced path angle. At a reduced path angle I would have intercepted the glideslope further out and at or above the final approach fix.




Synopsis: An ERJ-170 Captain received an EGPWS warning at 1;100 FT AGL on a visual approach because he set the FPA at 3 degrees and did not capture the ILS.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: RE the BULLZ RNAV STAR into ORD. If an aircraft is cleared to descend via the BULLZ arrival that aircraft will descend and reduce speed at specified points of the arrival. The BULLZ has aircraft cross TEDDY intersection at 11;000 feet at 250 knots.Both aircraft in this report were assigned 300 knots. Both aircraft were cleared direct TEDDY intersection. Both aircraft were issued a descent clearance to 15;000 feet. Both aircraft were then cleared to cross TEDDY at 11;000 feet. Both aircraft reduced speed to 250 knots at TEDDY without clearance to do so.I recommend speed restrictions be removed from the published BULLZ arrival. 70% of the time ORD is on a westerly flow and Approach Control requires the aircraft on the BULLZ arrival to cross TEDDY at 300 knots. This often causes confusion for the pilots and sometimes results in an aircraft not performing as directed or expected. Constantly having to restate or clarify clearances causes an increase in complexity and a decrease in safety and efficiency.




Synopsis: An ARTCC Controller expressed consternation at the failures of some flight crews to fail to maintain their assigned airspeed of 300 knots at TEDDY waypoint on the BULLZ RNAV STAR; instead slowing to 250 knots as published on the arrival.
Date: 201408
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Aircraft
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I was informed by Maintenance that a passenger on the flight; two legs prior; noticed a screw on the wing that wasn't fully secured.  The passenger never informed the flight crew.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information]


Synopsis: Passenger on a B737-700 observed a screw on the wing not fully secured.  Maintenance addressed the problem.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: AVL.Airport, NC
Aircraft: SR22
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E AVL
ATC / advisory: TRACON AVL
Second aircraft: SR22
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working East RADAR position/hand off combined and was the only person in the TRACON. Aircraft X was on a track from the southeast to the northwest at 8;000 FT. Aircraft Y was on a southwesterly course; also at 8;000. I became busy; and wasn't able to call for assistance. As a result; of trying to handle everything by myself; I didn't notice that the two aircraft were on converging courses. The Local Controller called down and pointed out to me that the two were at the same altitude. I was able to issue headings to each aircraft in time to avoid a loss of separation; but it would have been extremely close if the other controller hadn't spoken up. This is a situation I've been concerned about for some time. We have become complacent and people don't seem to want to keep the Hand Off position open. There's an overall feeling that it reflects on the RADAR Controller negatively if they have someone working that position. At the very least; an additional person needed to be in the TRACON to help. However; that isn't enough; controllers will often sit back at the supervisor's desk and expect the RADAR Controller to ask for help if he needs it. The newer controllers especially won't ask for help because they feel they need to prove themselves.




Synopsis: AVL Controller experienced a near loss of separation event when traffic suddenly increased to a point that he/she could not ask for assistance; the reporter noting a facility attitude with regard to opening the hand off position.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pushed back onto ramp. Planned to depart runway XY with an RNAV departure as cleared. Expecting long taxi from ramp to [RWY] XY; but when we called for taxi; ATC issued departure/runway change to runway XX. As Captain; I was still in the long taxi mindset; so we started the (now very short) taxi to runway XX as the first officer worked on the runway and departure change. We arrived quickly at the hold short and simply forgot to configure. We went 'below the line' on taking the runway; thinking that the first part of the takeoff checklist was complete. On takeoff roll; as throttles were advanced; we received a takeoff configuration warning and immediately discontinued the takeoff. We communicated the situation with tower as we exited the runway. We then taxied back to the hold short; completed the required checklists; and completed an uneventful takeoff.Trying to do too much in too little time. When dealing with multiple changes; such as runway/SID changes; the urge to try and fit it all in the original timeline in the pilot's mind is very strong. Inevitably; this is when something slips through the cracks; in this case; an entire checklist. When something new or different occurs; that's the time to consciously slow down and double check everything. I learned a valuable lesson and am thankful for the protections afforded by the takeoff configuration warning system; although they are only a last line of defense. The first line is always the crew. When in doubt; slow down! If we had stopped the taxi still on the ramp and done the runway change there; things would have flowed much more normally through the 'cleared to configure' call. We would have given ourselves time instead of trying to do more with less time.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reports being issued a runway and SID change when calling for taxi. This results in the aircraft not being configured and the first part of the Before Takeoff Checklist not being accomplished. A takeoff warning sounds and the takeoff is rejected.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received an ECS (Environmental Control System) 1 Fail message in flight. After running the QRH we then conferred with Maintenance and the [Chief Pilot]; we made the decision to divert to ZZZ; in the interest of safety. We landed uneventfully at ZZZ.


Second narrative: [Narrative contained no additional information].


Synopsis: EMB-505 flight crew reported executing an uneventful precautionary diversion due to failure of secondary ECS system.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in Cruise; my windscreen started to arc and flash. A traveling crack had developed on the outer screen. My First Officer and I recognized the issue and began planning for the window to break. After a minute or so; the screen shattered. The break was on the outermost layer. We determined it to be prudent to descend slowly and reduce airspeed. We didn't want to create any more pressures on the compromised glass. Also; we didn't want to turn a relatively benign situation into a hurried and unsafe situation. Along our travel; we picked out good landing spots in the direction of our destination in case the situation worsened. ATC was alerted to our situation and priority routing was given. We landed the plane at our original destination. It proved to be the quickest in terms of time with our descent restrictions. Also; it had the best emergency services and clearest runways and lowest winds of the choices along the way.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Captain reported a cockpit window shattered during flight. After descending and reducing airspeed; a successful landing was accomplished at the destination airport.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: L62.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G L62
ATC / advisory: CTAF L62
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I was going to practice takeoffs and landings at the Buttonwillow Airport (L82). I noticed persons flying radio controlled model aircraft on the mid portion of the runway. This is not an uncommon occurrence and these people are permitted to operate at this airport. On prior occasions; I have had no problem with these people; they clear the runway and usually yield to aircraft; so I decided to continue my approach to the airport. I had previously checked NOTAMs for any activity at the Buttonwillow airport and there were none. I could see them clearing the area and as I approached on final they were just about clear. I was configured for a short field landing and was able to land and stop my aircraft about 500 feet from where they were standing off the runway. I did self announce on the CTAF frequency of 122.9.I made a 180 turn and back taxied to the beginning of Runway 29 which I had just landed on. I saw the people were clear of the runway and initiated a short field takeoff. As I was approaching rotation speed; one of the persons stepped right to the edge of the runway. I thought about aborting the takeoff but reasoned this would be more dangerous than continuing because it would cause me to have to go past the person as I decelerated on the ground. I continued and became airborne prior to reaching the person. I stabilized my climb and turned to the right to create distance from the person and my aircraft. When I passed the person I estimated my altitude to be 100 feet and a horizontal distance of 200 feet from the person. I continued my climb and left the area. I did self announce on CTAF.In reviewing this incident; I have decided not to land at the Buttonwillow Airport; outside of an emergency; if there are model aircraft operating. There are just too many variables that make it unsafe.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C-182; after experiencing a close call with radio control modelers sharing--with permission--the use of the runway at L82 airport determined he would go elsewhere in the future for landing practice if the modelers were again present.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Logbook(s)
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Logbook Entry; MEL; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When we got to the airplane in ZZZ there was an MEL in the logbook that Maintenance was working on MEL 33-XX-XX-X due on [Date 1]. The Maintenance Technician signed off the MEL as fixed; and we received an amendment from Dispatch removing the MEL prior to the door closing. In ZZZ1 the release had the MEL back on it. The Captain called Dispatch about it and got transferred to Maintenance. The Maintenance team over the phone said the MEL was never closed out in their system; so according to our logbook and Dispatch we were okay; but on the Maintenance side we had an MEL open. The Captain corrected the logbook in ZZZ1 with Maintenance via phone and added MEL 33-XX-XX-X due [Date 2] into the logbook. The back end maintenance system needs to match the logbooks. Electronic logbooks can mitigate this risk by having multiple parties see the actual aircraft logs versus several phone calls going back and forth. There was a breakdown between Maintenance Control and Dispatch because our Dispatcher saw it as closed out hence he removed it and provided the amendment.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer reported a miss connect between Dispatch and maintenance regarding matching the aircraft logbook and electronic logbook differences.