elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Inbound to DEN on the ANCHR 4 Arrival; ATIS was reporting [runways] 34R; 35L and 35R in use. ATC instructed us to expect RNP Z 35R. We had this approach loaded. ATC gave us the 'Expect RNP-Z 35R' very close to the STAR/APCH branch point. This seems to be common practice in DEN. In past experience; if you don't close the discontinuity between the arrival and the approach quick enough; you pass the branch point and the transition onto the arc onto the final. I know this and I also know Denver Approach likes to throw last minute runway/approach changes. I know that per standard operating procedures; we are not to close the discontinuity until 'CLEARED for the Approach'. Knowing all this and the trap I was setting up for; I took the bait and closed the discontinuity before being cleared for the approach. At the last minute; we were told that we would be doing the Visual Approach 35R. Since I had taken out the discontinuity; the last two downwind fixes were no longer in the routing and the aircraft arced right towards final. We were doing a configuration change and the aircraft made it about 45-60 degrees before ATC corrected us. This is on me. I knew better and got sucked in with the VFR conditions; the late 'expect RNP-Z 35R' advisory; and the last minute change to Visual 35R which required us to continue onto the downwind heading until a revised clearance was issued. I know I'm one of many who have run afoul in this exact scenario at DEN. These late and last minute clearances and changes do not give us time to make the necessary changes/selections. We end up feeling rushed or pressured. One wrong button push and your house of cards falls apart.




Synopsis: B737-700 First Officer reported a track deviation occurred when ATC issued a late clearance for a visual approach to DEN.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MPTO.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MPTO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Sitting number one for takeoff while holding short of Rwy 03R in MPTO; we believed we heard in very broken English 'line up and wait 03R; be ready for an immediate'. I saw Aircraft Y approaching and thought it will be tight but doable. I responded to ATC with 'Line up and wait 03R; and we'll be ready'. Practically all the ATC communications were in Spanish; except for our clearance. This makes it very difficult to have situational awareness. We heard an ATC transmission while we were taking the runway in Spanish that included '[our company callsign]' and had intensity in his voice (I can only assume this was the Aircraft Y pilot asking what the heck was going on with [our company callsign] taking the runway). Then ATC said something that seemed like a takeoff clearance. At this time the Captain was straightening the aircraft onto the runway centerline. I asked ATC 'say again.' There was no immediate response so the Captain keyed the mic and said 'confirm cleared for takeoff.' We both heard 'affirmative.' We proceeded with the takeoff roll. I was flying pilot and the Captain was non flying pilot. While we were on the takeoff roll we heard in Spanish 'Aircraft Y... [unintelligible]... Going around.' Once we got in the air around 800 ft AGL; ATC told us that our instruction was to 'line up and wait after landing traffic and be ready for immediate.' The Captain responded that we did not hear the 'after landing traffic' portion. Since we did not hear that I never responded when I accepted the lineup and wait clearance. I read it back and ATC had that opportunity to correct the situation before we took the runway. Also; why did we hear 'affirmative' after the Captain asked to 'confirm cleared for takeoff'? I believe the majority of the transmissions in Spanish played a large role in this event due to not giving us complete situational awareness. Also the controller's English was very poor and they spoke fast making it difficult to understand. I personally feel that ATC made a mistake and was trying to put the blame on us after their bad decision to issue us a takeoff clearance.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported communication breakdown with ATC regarding takeoff clearance from MPTO.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DXR.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DXR
Second aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for takeoff on Runway 17. No other aircraft were on final to that runway or crossing downfield. Just prior to rotational speed; Aircraft Y crossed Runway 17 on Taxiway C. Aircraft B was instructed to hold short of the runway by ATC. Being at rotational speed; Aircraft X rotated and climbed out.




Synopsis: A Beech Baron pilot described a runway incursion event that involved an aircraft crossing the runway in front of another aircraft on the takeoff roll.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Gear disagreed warning message; landing gear would not retract after takeoff. After departing Runway XXR at ZZZ; gear would not retract. Attempted several times; would not retract. Ran the QRH for gear disagree in the up position. Landing gear stayed down and locked throughout the entire event; hydraulic 3a & b pumps will working with 3;000 PSI in system. With gear handle down; gear disagree warning message. Extinguished; all gear down and locked in green; system normal. Contacted Maintenance; advised of situation; recommended return to ZZZ.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported that the landing gear would not retract after takeoff; resulting in a return to the departure airport.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DPA.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-20 Pacer/PA-22 Tri-Pacer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Under VFR flight rules approaching from the south at 1;900 FT I called the Tower. They responded and asked me to contact Approach and that I was in restricted airspace due to a TFR. The local time was XB:30 CDT the TFR expired at XA:30 CDT as confirmed by my on board XM satellite information. This was also confirmed on Foreflight. Before flying and while on the ground I watched the TFR expire at XA:30 local time and was no longer depicted on the Garmin satellite based GPS or on the Foreflight system. I called Approach; they gave me a transponder code which was entered. They acknowledged me on radar but stated that I was too low for them to see. I asked if they needed me further and if I could change frequencies back to Tower. Approach replied frequency change approved. I changed back to Tower and landed without incident; and was not requested to have further communication with any facility.




Synopsis: A PA22 pilot watched a TFR expire on his Garmin GPS as expected and departed for an airport previously below the TFR.  Approaching destination he was advised that the TFR was still in effect.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E MIA
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Flight Data / Clearance Delivery
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FLL Feeder and Final were combined. Aircraft X was inbound from the northeast for RWY 10L at FLL; on the arrival north of the airport descending to 030. The Zulu controller observed a VFR climbing out of the OPF/HWO area and turning northwest-bound between the FLL class C and the MIA class B right through the FLL finals and tagged it at ''Watch2''. Upon doing that; due to ADS-B; the callsign was observed to be Aircraft Y. The VFR was climbing out of 023 just west of PIONN on the 10L ILS; which has an intercept altitude of 025. Aircraft X was on a converging course with this VFR and had to be abruptly turned in tighter for a visual approach to runway 10L to miss the VFR; causing a potentially unstable and unsafe situation. Had traffic volume been more; it was already complex enough with the weather in the area; it would have been a substantially more dangerous situation. FLL needs more protected airspace; and should not need to have its finals run according to random VFRs who are allowed to fly through and climb through its finals.FLL airport is the 19th busiest airport in the USA; and one of the top 3 fastest growing; averaging 8% growth each of the last 5 years. FLL has a basic Class C airspace surrounding it; that is beyond out of date and unable to aid in the safety of its aircraft on the finals. Planes inbound to each of their parallel runways are not offered any sort of protection until within 5 miles of the field; which allows several dozen VFRs each day to climb; descend; and transition across each final; without ATC advisories creating a very dangerous; unsafe; and hazardous situation in the skies above. The FLL Class C is inadequate; and out of date; and needs a major airspace change around it; whether a bigger Charlie; or a full blown Class B before it's too late.




Synopsis: Miami TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict between a VFR aircraft and an IFR aircraft that was inbound to FLL.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FWA.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower FWA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the takeoff roll; ATC was issuing a full route clearance to another airplane on another frequency. This clearance was being read throughout the entire takeoff roll; rotation and bringing the gear up. It made communicating between the FO and I challenging and created an unsafe situation. FWA Tower has done this 3-4 times over the course of the month I have been flying out of FWA; it needs to stop. Had something gone wrong during the takeoff roll; it would have complicated the issue dramatically. Normal communications that occur during the takeoff roll are short and do not make communications in the cockpit challenging.ATC issuing a full route clearance on the tower frequency when there is no need to do that. There is a specific Clearance Frequency at this airport as well as a Ground Frequency that can be used. They should be required to use one of those frequencies. This could have been avoided by ATC not issuing a clearance on the Tower Frequency.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that during their takeoff roll; FWA ATC Tower gave a full clearance routing to another aircraft. The Captain described concerns with the high level of distraction created during a critical phase.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter function: Technician
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During a complete teardown of an Arriel 2B1 to replace the MO1 Module due to being out of tolerance after inspected in accordance with a Service Bulletin (SB). The tooling used to remove and replace the MO5 Module required that three bolts be removed from the casings that the tool may be fitted to the MO5 Module. Upon rebuild of the engine I had gone over several times to make sure canon plugs were in the correct spots (they can be installed in the wrong place). Making also certain that all fittings where torqued down. The missing bolts while the MO5 Module is installed are hidden under the exhaust. Even with repeated checks these bolts were overlooked. Though that lack of these bolts would not have caused a severe failure; the fact that they were missing is not acceptable.I suggest that each person involved in the project; at each step to complete the task look over and ensure procedures are being followed and all work is checked. Checklists made to ensure that each items is accounted for. We are having a safety meeting with 3 mechanics as of today and will have another meeting when we have all mechanics available so that we all can make it clear on how serious of an issue this is.




Synopsis: When replacing an MO1 Module on an Arriel 2B1 Helicopter Engine; three bolts are removed from the MO5 Module casing to accommodate the tooling. These bolts were left off when the engine was installed.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was experiencing intermittent low amp readings; fluctuating from 60 to -5 amps. I was analyzing this situation perhaps more aggressively than necessary which led to a failure to switch fuel tanks. I had more than an hour of reserve fuel on board and was monitoring and managing my fuel. When reaching 8 gallons remaining on my left rank I made a mental note to switch at 5 gallons. However; I turned my attention back to my low volts indication and completely forgot about switching fuel tanks. Bottom line; the engine stopped; I [advised ATC] and landed without incident at ZZZ. Once on the ground; it finally occurred to me that I forgot to switch fuel tanks.




Synopsis: RV-10 pilot reported they were distracted by an electrical issue and forgot to switch fuel tanks causing the engine to stop in flight. The pilot landed the aircraft successfully.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Conditions were VMC clear below 12000 and visibility better than 20 miles. My student and I were cleared for approach into ZZZ. The controller requested our intentions and I stated this approach would terminate with a low approach only and runway heading then direct to destination when able. The controller acknowledged our intentions and shortly after we were authorized to change to advisory frequency.During our climbout; we checked back in with Approach and it did not sound like the same controller. He stated the missed approach procedure was a right turn. I replied we did not request the missed and were runway heading climbing. He acknowledged my reply then shortly after asked if I could maintain terrain separation until 5200. I replied affirmatively. We were then given direct destination and climb maintain 6000. After some time of being level at 6000 I was contacted regarding the possible pilot deviation.I feel that the alternate missed instructions were not confirmed by me or the controller(s) even though my intent was clear before changing to advisory that we had no intention of flying the missed procedure. This lack of clarity and possibly our intent not being relayed to the next controller; resulted in our left turn away from the terrain in question being instructed and complied with in a timely manner. We remained several miles away from any terrain and at no time was there risk to safety of flight.




Synopsis: ATP Flight Instructor with student reported a CFTT event during climbout from a low approach due to a miscommunication between Pilot and ATC. Reporter stated he did not confirm the alternate departure instructions resulting in the CFTT.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IND.TRACON, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C IND
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Upon departing KEYE on a heading of 050 direct this was going to put me in conflict of several high towers 1866 ft MSL less than 5 miles from KEYE and just outside of Class C airspace at KIND; with a floor of 2100 ft MSL. When departing KEYE on RWY 3; the AFD states to maintain runway heading until 1500 ft MSL.Upon departure and climb out I hit significant turbulence and my attention was keeping the aircraft under control. I called Indy approach so as not to break their airspace however I was told to standby.I was concerned about the towers and I may have inadvertently broken the Class C airspace floor of 2100 ft MSL at KIND climbing to avoid these towers and controlling my aircraft at the same time.I attempted to contact Indy approach and when told to standby my main concern at that point was to control the aircraft and avoid hitting the towers. I don't know if I broke their airspace or not but at the time my main concern was flight safety.I believe KIND ATC has an obligation to help all pilots; and in this regard I believe they failed. Under the circumstances I believe I acted correctly considering the turbulence and all that was happening very quickly.




Synopsis: Multiple high transmitter towers within vicinity of an airport lying under Class C airspace contributed to a Part 91 flights possible inadvertent airspace intrusion.