elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATC told us to descend via the KIPPR arrival. We attempted to do so using VNAV; but VNAV could not handle the altitudes and speeds. The winds were programmed; but were light and negligible. We had to revert to MCP [speed and path modes] to make the crossings and speeds.




Synopsis: When the VNAV PATH autoflight mode of a B757 was unable to comply with the speed and altitude constraints on the KIPPR RNAV STAR to DEN the flight crew intervened with alternate descent and airspeed autopilot modes.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 6
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Received pre-departure clearance through commercial radio on EFB. This is a relatively new process for me. The clearance comes on my iPad with the cleared route just above the as filed route on the page. When I looked up to program the FMS and then down again at the clearance I mistakenly looked at the 'as filed' routing and programmed the FMS with that route. The only difference between the cleared route and the as filed route was the SID. After departure we flew the mistakenly programmed route until queried by NORCAL departure as to why we had not made the initial turn on the SFO1. I will issue a safety report to our pilot team to build awareness that our PDC puts the cleared route directly above the filed route which can be confusing.




Synopsis: CE750 Captain reports confusing the as filed portion of the PDC with the cleared portion; as received on his iPad EFB. A track deviation occurs as the SID had changed.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 7G0.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF 7G0
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Situation involves the degradation of and/or lack of runway markings; taxiway lights and fencing at 7G0 in Brockport NY. After about 15 years all runway numbers and centerline markings have vanished. Runway 28 is served by a Non-precision approach and/or ATC visual approach. AC 150/5340-1L; chapter 2 outlines minimum requirements that are not met. At night or during a gray; low light day operation the lack of markings is a safety hazard. I have flown to minimums and just barely identified the runway end. And the lack of a centerline eliminates an important flare cue that is useful to all pilots anytime.The taxiway lights are inoperative due to a 27 year old control system that desperately needs repair/updating. While the runway lights are functional it is hazardous to taxi relying just on the aircraft's light source.The Deer population in Western New York has exploded and it is very common to see them loitering on the airport property and run across the runway. I have experienced landing and discovering deer on both sides of me during the rollout. They blend into the surroundings well. A week ago a high wing aircraft was slightly damaged when a large buck ran into the nose gear upon landing rollout at night. The airport operator has requested fencing but the FAA has not agreed. Most of the other surrounding airports received fencing. Why not 7G0?

Callback: The reporter stressed the view of the airport at night and coming out of the clouds on a rainy day is simple a gray sheet. The pavement is serviceable; but the painting and lighting needs upgrading for safety reasons.



Synopsis: A pilot reported 7G0 runway and taxiway marking are badly faded and do not meet the AC 150/5340-1L requirements. The lack of fencing has allowed deer to overrun the airport and become a hazard.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FXE.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While transitioning between the Arrival and Initial Approach phases we were instructed to descend from 8000 feet to 4000 feet and given a heading of 250 degrees. Just after passing through 5;000 feet we were given a clearance to slow to 210 knots first and then continue our descent. This must have sounded as descend to 2;000 feet. As we reached 2;300 feet we were given a new heading of 270 degrees followed by a 340 degree heading and to climb to 3;000 feet. Between these two heading changes we received a TA. As ATC instructed us to climb to 3;000 feet they also informed us that we had been assigned 4;000 feet. Upon landing the company notified me to contact ATC to discuss the event.The First Officer and I agreed that several factors may have contributed to the deviation. ATC assigning multiple clearance items simultaneously could have assisted as a cause. We were 1;000 feet from level off when we received a 210 knot speed reduction combined with another level off altitude. We were instructed to slow to 210 knots and then continue our descent. This combined with an ATC Trainee on duty could have helped create the deviation.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: BD-100 flight crew reported overshooting clearance altitude because they misunderstood the clearance.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for the RNAV Visual 31L by SOCAL Approach. Approaching the CEKMA waypoint; Approach advised us of VFR traffic at 11 o'clock and three miles maneuvering below us and climbing. Almost immediately; we received a TA with no bearing as the VFR traffic checked in with SOCAL. He advised that he was in a spiraling climb off Bermuda Dunes airport. SOCAL immediately advised the traffic to stop the climb and fly heading 360. At the same time we received CLIMB RA. I complied with the RA and the FO notified SOCAL. VFR aircraft passed below our aircraft approximately 300 feet below us. Dispatch was notified.VFR traffic not cognizant of proximity to PSP airport and hazards of inbound traffic. ATC informed the VFR aircraft that the spiral climb 'was not a good idea' given his location in relation to PSP.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported an NMAC with a VFR aircraft in the vicinity of PSP.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We had a] flap exceedance of four knots. A routine runway heading to 5000 feet quickly morphed into a task saturated event as ATC realized they had authorized takeoff without necessary spacing. At about 400 feet in climb crew received seven transmissions before 1900 feet AGL. Also two changes to altitude; one being a low-level level off. During the same period the plane was transitioned through three flight mode changes to attempt the rapid fire compliance. The calls (all separate) were; turn left to 040; next stop climb at 2500 feet; next was a verification call that we had received the 040 heading (we were already halfway thru the turn); then a call to another aircraft; then a traffic call; then a call to turn further left to 320; then a call to go to departure; upon check-in the call to climb and maintain 17000 feet. All that prior to 2400 feet MSL. Simultaneously the FMC was stepping through its phases but at 2200 MSL as it accelerated it was about to pitch up even though 2500 ft was armed; as PF I announced the oncoming trap; said that it couldn't keep up; command bars up; vertical speed selected but didn't take as alt acquired over-rode that mode; no speed window open because plane wasn't at altitude yet. I announced that it can't speed protect and manually retarded the throttles. Flaps were commanded up but weren't up as plane hit 244 knots. Before the plane even got to 2500 feet we had been switched to departure and were cleared to 17000; VNAV was selected and the event was over. All this in the first 1900 feet of climb. This event is actually a testament to the SOP and training at our airline. Teamwork and identification of the traps enabled the crew to anticipate; adjust; and comply in rapid fire manner to this nonstandard event. Prioritizing; knowing the system's capabilities and weaknesses; the work arounds; etc; turned an ATC crunch into a benign event with the exception of the four knots of flap exceedance. Flap speed buffer once again proves wise. Recommendation is for all to pay attention to training and do as trained.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported exceeding flap limit speed when ATC overloaded them with clearances early in the climb.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AUO.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZTL
ATC / advisory: CTAF AUO
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [We] departed AUO to complete a Commercial Pilot Stage Check. The objective was to complete a practice ILS approach to Runway 36 at AUO; with simulated vectors to the final approach course. The private; instrument rated pilot was the pilot flying (PF). He was wearing view limiting 'foggles'. The aircraft is equipped with an ADS-B traffic awareness system; displayed on the MFD. We were established on the localizer for Runway 36 at approximately 9 miles from the runway. The PF made his initial radio call on CTAF that we were 9 mile south on the ILS Runway 36. There was one other aircraft approximately 3 miles ahead of us; on final; on the ILS as well. We were approximately a 6 mile final when [Aircraft Y] reported 10 miles straight in for Runway 36. We subsequently made another distance call to alert the Aircraft Y of our location. By this time; we had the aircraft on the ADS-B display. That aircraft was at a higher altitude but substantially faster than our final approach speed of 90 KIAS. We had no visual contact with the Aircraft Y; our only reference was the track on our MFD. When he called 5 mile final; I asked over CTAF if he intended to overfly us on final. The response was; 'we will sidestep to the left'. When the ADS-B showed +300 and very close behind us; I stated to the student 'I have the flight controls' and descended and banked right. The pilot of the jet stated that he had us in sight no factor. We then saw the Aircraft Y slightly below and to our left as he passed by. The other aircraft ahead of us called low approach only and went around. We sidestepped to the right and climbed back to pattern altitude on an upwind leg. The Aircraft Y landed without further incident.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported an NMAC on approach to AUO airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was aware there was parachute jumping and it was announced by my radar controller. I was busy getting strips and on the landline with FPR and VRB towers with coordination. R4 reminded us of the parachute activity and my radar controller turned the aircraft to the west of the airfield. It was hard to tell from the D-side how far away he was from the airport but it seemed pretty close; maybe a mile. He then went up a few hundred feet and when R3 assigned him 4;000 again he reported something like 'You should tell that parachute company that they are illegally jumping with no proper cloud clearance. We just popped out of a cloud and we were 200 feet from a collision with one of them.'After the event was over; the R3 controller and I discussed it would be a good idea to have a red circle drawn around the airport area and keeping the jump plane on the scope. He said he had dropped it due to clutter. Also; pilots should pay attention to the reminders of the jump so they can jog our memories if we forget or get too busy to focus on that particular duty.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller reported of a situation where an aircraft was climbing to assigned altitude and went through some clouds. As the aircraft exited the pilot reported that a skydiving aircraft was illegally jumping due to close proximity to the clouds.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting a solo crosswind landing as a student pilot; I entered into ground effect. I corrected the left to right drift with left aileron and applied right rudder to line up on centerline before touch down. When I flared; the aircraft touched down then ballooned. The aircraft yawed to the left and headed toward the grass to the left of the runway. I attempted to add power to perform a go-around to avoid cross loading the landing gear. As I added power; I felt the aircraft sink; and I pulled power and landed in the left grass off the runway. I notified Tower once I set down and slowed the aircraft to a safe taxi speed. I was asked if I required any assistance. I replied 'no;' taxied back on to the paved runway; and was cleared back to the flight school. I then notified my instructor and maintenance personnel and provided my information to the ATC. There was no damage to the aircraft; and my flight instructor recommended filing this report. I believe that when the aircraft ballooned; I released the right rudder input; causing the aircraft to yaw into the wind. When I noticed the sink and the potential cross load; I should have applied more right rudder and landed instead of adding power to attempt the go around with a heading left of the runway. ASOS reported winds 18009. ATC wind call when cleared for take-off was 19010.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported a loss of control and runway excursion during crosswind landing.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Diamond Jet; Undifferentiated
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Test Flight / Demonstration
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: T6A Texan II / Harvard II (Raytheon)
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was conducting a functional test flight under VFR rules. When cleared for takeoff on Runway XXR; Tower cleared us to fly runway heading at or below 5000 feet. As soon as we rotated and weight off wheels; the cabin overpressurized and we leveled off at 2;200 feet MSL. Tower handed us off to approach control. I indicated that we needed to return and requested to re-enter the traffic pattern. Approach Control directed us to turn left heading 040 so that he could coordinate a downwind back into the traffic pattern with Tower. We did not declare an emergency due to the plane was flying safely and we were handling the pressurization issue. While on heading of 040 assigned by ATC at 2;200 feet; we got a traffic alert on TCAS. As soon as we looked up a T-6 was banking over the top of us with about 400 feet separation. At that time I realized we had flown through [an] AFB's traffic pattern. Then Approach Control realized what had happened and turned us to a heading of 300 to direct us away from [the AFB]. I then asked Approach Control if that was our fault since we were flying a vector given by them. I was told that everything would be worked out and we were ok. When I landed I called the TRACON and spoke to a controller; explained the situation. He told me that we were in the right and they had got busy trying to coordinate with the Tower while the traffic conflict had happened.




Synopsis: Diamond Jet Captain reported an NMAC with a T-6 after entering an Air Force Base's airspace while following an ATC clearance.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [I was advised] that an ATC audit revealed a discrepancy with my departure from DFW [on a flight a few weeks ago]. Upon reviewing my logbook I recalled a northbound departure; with an RNAV procedure clearance but I'm not sure which procedure. We typically are issued the TRISS departure. I was the flying pilot. I recall being issued a takeoff clearance while the preceding aircraft was still on the runway. The Captain and I agreed to delay our takeoff roll until the previous aircraft was off the runway. Climbing out on departure we experienced significant rolling wake turbulence; but did not notice any RNAV deviation. It is possible this incident created the ATC discrepancy; which we had no indication of at the time. We continued the flight without incident. Suggestions: Improved spacing between all departing aircraft. Some of the most violent wake turbulence I've experience in the MD-80 in my career has been behind Boeing 737s; which are not considered a threat. We should have reported the wake encounter at the time.




Synopsis: MD-80 First Officer reported being advised of a deviation on departure from DFW after the fact that may have been caused by wake turbulence encounter with preceding aircraft.