elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D APC
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On descent into KAPC; was cleared for the visual approach 18R. We were approaching from the south so I was entering a right downwind. NorCal asked what or which downwind we were doing; we informed them right downwind and they said a left would work better due to oncoming traffic. I entered the left downwind and at 1;600 MSL was given a low altitude alert. The visual approach was challenging from that point on due to rising terrain on the northeast side of the field. When we landed I checked the AFD and saw that 18R is designated right traffic. Not sure why NorCal wanted us on a left downwind instead of giving us or the other aircraft a vector. I will be checking the AFD more diligently from now on and will not let ATC talk me into a corner.

Callback: Reporter indicated that an ATC clearance was issued for a visual approach with no altitude and that ATC provided the low altitude alert.



Synopsis: Corporate jet pilot was issued an ATC clearance contrary to the published airport traffic pattern that led to a challenging approach accompanied by an ATC low altitude alert.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Dash 8 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working both radar sectors combined. Tower had just scanned down the next departure strip of Aircraft X. While I was waiting for Aircraft X to tag I also had another aircraft to the far north that I was flashing at Center and they had yet to take the flash. I called Center so they would take the handoff before the aircraft entered Centers airspace. While that was going on Aircraft X called and amid all the talk on the frequencies that I was listening to I thought Aircraft X said that he was climbing to his initial altitude of 16000 feet. I then gave him a turn heading 180 and Aircraft X asked for higher as he was leveling the aircraft at 6000 feet. He was in a 6500 MVA. I immediately continued his climb and got the aircraft out of the higher MVA.Its impossible to prevent human error. However; when someone is assigned to work ZZZ radar and they have to work both sectors combined the frequency congestion can be ridiculous even when the traffic is minimal. Also; CD (Clearance Delivery) should have caught the wrong read back in the clearance when they assigned the initial altitude of 16000 feet. I also should have caught it but I missed it in the clutter on the frequencies. It's also possible that CD marks each strip that they have to issue manually so they know that the correct altitude was issued and read back correctly.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported missing an aircraft altitude report resulting in the aircraft entering a higher MVA.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After preflight and engine start; I listened to the ATIS and set the radio frequencies and navigation for the return flight. I made a call to ground control to request flight following. I did not hear a response. I checked the ATIS again and it sounded like 'native' ATIS. There was no other visible activity on the ground or in the air. I tried contacting clearance delivery with the same results. I double checked the published frequencies and noticed the hours of operation. I saw XA:00-XK:00 and concluded the tower was closed. (I have since checked and found the dates for those hours invalid). I announced my intentions on the CTAF (tower) frequency and started to taxi. When I was on taxiway 'A'; I looked towards the tower and noticed someone inside. I immediately pulled over onto the ramp and discovered the squelch and volume to be mis-set on the radio I was using. I corrected this and called ground for taxi clearance and flight following and the rest of the flight was uneventful.My mistakes were:   -Not thoroughly reading the AFD information as to the tower operating hours.   -Not immediately recognizing that ATIS would announce the tower being closed.   -Assuming that there was no communication problem (on my end).   -I had used separate radios for listening to ATIS and talking to ground and never cross checked them.Contributing factors were:   -Unfamiliar airport.   -Lack of activity (any other aircraft moving would have made me immediately realize I should be hearing communications).




Synopsis: C182 pilot reports being unable to contact the Tower and assumes the Tower is closed. During taxi; movement in the Tower indicates that it may be open. A second check of the radio reveals that the volume and squelch are not properly adjusted.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Accepted the RUUDY 4 departure and crossed WENTZ at 1;700 instead of 1;500 FT.




Synopsis: A single pilot C525 departed on the TEB RUUDY 4 and crossed WENTZ at 1;700 FT instead of 1;500 FT.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON CYYZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This happened; as you can see in Toronto's airspace; so I don't know if this will protect me; but maybe it can be a learning experience for others hopefully. We were flying the Waterloo 4 arrival into CYYZ; on with Approach. We were given clearance to maintain 11;000 FT; altimeter 30.32. Passing trough 14;000 FT ATC called and told us to stop the descent at 13;000 FT which we did. Then the Controller asked if we were flying the arrival; and we said yes. He then pointed out that even though we were given a lower altitude; we must still follow the altitudes on the STAR; which was ROCKTO between I believe 16;000 and 14;000 and 250 KTS. We were at least 5 to 10 mile to ROCKTO. I guess the main problem the Captain and I thought of was the fact that in the US; unless you are given 'Descend Via'; you just go down to the assigned altitude. In this situation; we must follow the plate and descent to the lower altitude. The Captain was pilot flying; I was pilot not flying. After reading the notes on the plate; it could still be hard to know what was wanted after being given a lower altitude. Maybe on a short flight like this; look at the arrival before. There is a lot of info on that plate.


Second narrative: Pay more attention to the arrivals and the small print.


Synopsis: A flight crew on the CYYZ Waterloo Four arrival missed the approach plate note reminding pilots that all altitude constraints are mandatory as they descended to 11;000 FT prior to the ROKTO minimum of 14;000 FT.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
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 Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight at FL390; we experienced an uncommanded altitude climb. The auto pilot was engaged at the time. There was no master caution or warning alert. The aircraft felt as if it were kicked and pitched up abruptly. I immediately disconnected the autopilot stating my aircraft. A review of the ECAM revealed ELAC 2 fault. My First Officer had indicated when he arrived to the flight that he was relatively new to the Airbus. I elected in this regard to have him do the ECAM procedure rather than attempt to hand fly at FL390. The flow indicated reset but had the words ON THE GROUND ONLY. No reset was attempted. We notified Dispatch via ACARS and the station upon landing that there was a write up in the book. Dispatch replied with a question of if it were one or both ELACs. The flight attendants all said they felt the kick I mentioned earlier in this report. They also indicated that several passengers expressed concerns. The auto pilot was re engaged and the aircraft was flown into ZZZ without further incident. This was a case of a system malfunction thus no causal factors that I can think of exists.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported the failure of ELAC2 in flight and discovered that it was only re-settable on the ground. The Captain elected to continue to destination airport and entered the discrepancy in the aircraft log book.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After a long duty day; we were repositioning the aircraft from one uncontrolled airfield to another uncontrolled airfield located 12 miles apart. At the time of departure; the ASOS was reporting marginal VFR conditions. Once we were airborne; the weather appeared to have deteriorated from what was reported. The departure was normal; but after reaching our intended altitude we began configuring for the landing. The aircraft descended and we received a terrain alert at which point we realized we were low. The pilot flying initiated a short climb; before completing the landing checklist. The landing was made without incident.




Synopsis: Citation 560XL Captain reported a GPWS event at the end of a long duty day.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Tower, CA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Runway; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Ever since the airport reopened Taxiway Tango; there have been aircraft having difficulty identifying the correct set of hold bars to stop at when told to hold short of Runway 28 Left at night. I had not seen too many of late; until there began an increase.  My example tonight was night; wet surface; currently clear enough to see all of the aircraft on final.  Aircraft X exited Runway 28 Right; and I would need the runway behind them before being able to cross them.  They were stopping at the front end of the hold position marking and I asked them to pull forward as I know it can be confusing.   The pilot communicating said 'We were just talking about that' and they would pull forward to hold short of Runway 28 Left. Once I crossed them; I asked Ground Control to ask them to describe what about the markings was confusing as we have seen many aircraft do the same. They said the markings were correct. I am confused what the airport did that is correct and yet causing this issue to persist and currently increase in frequency. I am not sure of the what and why.  Please share to my facility and let's see if they can find out from the city before we have an unpleasant incident.




Synopsis: A San Francisco Tower Controller reported an aircraft taxiing off the runway on a newly reconstructed Taxiway Tango appeared to be confused where to hold short of the parallel runway. The reporter states this has been a recurring issue since the taxiway reopened.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Generator Drive
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Not sure if this is the correct way to raise this concern. During LH (left hand) IDG (integrated Drive Generator) filter replacement; found filter bowl with four notches. Inspection revealed that the filter removed has 4 'tabs.' These tabs produced the notches in the bowl. There are several filter P/N (part Numbers) that can be used in IDG. This one P/N is 7583142. Possibly vibrations produced fretting between the tabs and the bowl.Suggestions: Eliminate these filters as alternate part number and use filter that do not have these tabs.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported that an Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) filter that has'4 tabs' is causing damage; 'notches;' to the filter bowl.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Rain
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: HP bleed valve would not open after start; refused aircraft after MEL'd and known and forecast icing conditions.




Synopsis: Captain reported refusing the aircraft because a High Pressure Bleed Valve would not open after start and there was a forecast for known icing conditions present.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach

Narrative: Altitude deviation of approximately 350-400 feet during autopilot-flown published MAP GPS Runway 05. Deviation took place 'between' ATC handoff from center to approach - neither controller raised/mentioned any concern about the altitude and no vertical separation was reported as lost. Reprogramming FMS (deleting current MAP; adding new destination) also was required during this hand-off. Altitude of 4;000 set and armed in KFC-150 AP (AP altitude functions had been somewhat erratic on earlier approach). Altitude capture function did not hold 4;000 MSL - continued climb noted and I immediately disengaged AP and hand-flew the aircraft to assigned altitude. CAVEATS and recommendations: 1) The installed AP is 16+ years old and is interfacing with new technology navigators and 3-screen PFD/MFDs. The FMS/interfacing displays have developed faster than many 'older' autopilots common in GA today. This might be considered as part of testing/development (and perhaps a FAA WINGS computer training session related to these interfaces!) - how new panel technology will interface with older APs. That info is certainly not in the older AP manuals! 2) The ATC hand-off from center to approach took place during the busy MAP procedure (prior to reaching published MAP holding waypoint). Granted; this is no big deal for a crewed airplane as the Pilot Not Flying (PNF) normally handles the COM/NAV/FMS; etc....hand-offs at this time for single-pilot GA are very difficult. Waiting an extra minute or two for the pilot to enter the hold/level off/reduce workload and then discuss next approach or other options may help prevent task saturation in single-pilot IFR operations. Perhaps this is information that might be helpful to controllers when dealing with smaller GA aircraft (single pilot) on a MAP procedure.  Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts and kudos to this excellent reporting program.




Synopsis: A PA-34 pilot reported his aircraft's sixteen year old autopilot is interfaced with a new technology FMS. As center handed him off to approach; he was reprogramming for a practice GPS approach but his autopilot failed to capture an altitude resulting an overshoot and very high workload. Single pilot operations with mixed new and old technology creates special demands.