elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During approach; upon configuring to flaps 40 we received a Leading Edge (LE) Slats in transit amber illumination. With the Tower/ATC permission we executed a 180 degree turn out of traffic followed by additional vectors while we performed the QRH procedures for this problem. The ultimate requirement of this checklist was to perform a flaps 15 landing at a target approach speed of flaps 15+ 15 KTS. In the interim First Officer declared an emergency with ATC due to our flight control problem and our rapidly diminishing fuel state. It was a clear day and we were only minutes away from possible divert to three large airports. I notified Dispatch via phone patch of our problem and they asked if we could go into our destination at flaps 15. Since I was busy with the QRH completion I asked them to send us the data via ACARS. It arrived just in time; because we were now approaching a minimum fuel status and I was just about to divert. The data was good with auto breaks set at 3/ flaps 15; so we continued to a successful/uneventful landing at our destination. Our gross weight at touchdown was about 111k; hence our ability to have the performance necessary for a flaps 15 landing. Emergency response vehicles followed us off the runway until we terminated our emergency status.The cause of the annunciation we had was a #6 slat in transit light on the overhead panel. This precipitated the forward panel annunciation and our airspeed tape lower buffer margin readouts (yellow band) thinking the aircraft did not have proper flap configuration. The top of the band was 20 KTS above flaps 40 target speed. This ended up being a #6 slat sensor problem rather than the slat actually being out of position; but the results were the same.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain experiences a LE Slat in transit light during approach. QRH procedures are complied with resulting in a flaps 15 landing. Dispatch is asked to do the performance calculations for landing on the relatively short runway with flaps 15 and finds the runway adequate.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CVG.TRACON, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E CVG
ATC / advisory: TRACON CVG
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was VFR at 11;500 feet; west of CVG; not communicating with Cincinnati approach; but monitoring their frequency. I saw a passenger jet approaching from my 10 o'clock; approximately 6 miles; 11;000 feet. This was confirmed by ADS-B TCAS; which showed the other aircraft was descending. I maintained visual separation; no action necessary. I then heard approach ask the other aircraft if he had a visual on traffic '12 o'clock; indicating 11;600 feet.' Which would have been my position relative to his aircraft. I could hear no responses from the other aircraft; but approach continued to ask if he had a visual on traffic; even after the jet passed my position. The jet passed approximately 500 feet below my aircraft.Because of the time of day and aircraft positions; the sun was likely obscuring my aircraft from view; contributing to the other pilot's inability to get a visual on traffic.Flying with VFR flight following or on an IFR flight plan would have opened communications between myself and Cincinnati; which would have allowed a confirmation of my position to approach; and vectoring traffic for further separation.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported an air carrier aircraft passed about 500 feet below his aircraft in the vicinity of CVG airport.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After rotation; below 1000'; we received a STALL FAIL Caution message. We continued to a safe altitude; cleaned up the aircraft and accomplished the after takeoff checklist. PF (Pilot Flying) handled the aircraft and the radios while the PM (Pilot Monitoring) ran the QRH. We communicated the issue with (Dispatch) and MOC thru ACARS.  Decision was made to return to ZZZ. Spoke with the Flight Attendant to explain the situation and also made a PA to the passengers describing the situation and that we were returning to ZZZ. Declared our intentions to ATC while [advising] and asking for trucks to be available upon landing. We set up for the longest runway available and proceeded to a normal landing. No assistance was needed and we were able to taxi to the gate. Aircraft displayed a CAUTION message on the EICAS after takeoff.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported STALL FAIL message during climb.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While at cruise FL450 Washington Center gave us fly direct to DAVYS intersection. My FO (First Officer) and I thought we heard DVANY intersection. I then hit direct to DVANY and proceeded to fix. After a few minutes with an ATC frequency change the new controller questioned which fix we were flying to; in which we replied DVANY. He then gave us a heading and then back direct to DAVYS then our original route. No traffic conflicts that I was aware of occurred. Not verifying phonetic spelling of fix with ATC and the fact the two fixes sounded familiar. Confirm phonetic spelling of fixes with ATC before making changes to flight plan.


Second narrative: In cruise flight at 45;000 feet we were given a shortcut on the route. We had 2 similar sounding and spelling fixes on our flight plan. I was pilot monitoring and replied what we thought was the correct fix. This was on with Washington Center. He handed us over to the next Washington Center. 2 minutes or so since the original instruction was given the new controller gave us a crossing restriction for the other fix; we then learned our mistake and immediately sought to clarify with ATC. They put us on a heading and we fixed our mistake and ATC reissued our route and the rest of the flight was without issue. ATC mood seemed fine. DVANY and DAVYS are the 2 fixes in question having two fixes with similar spellings and not clarifying. As pilots always ask if not 100% sure especially if there is similar spellings with ATC instructions. Don't assume; verify.


Synopsis: Citation X flight crew reported confusion between fixes DVANY and DAVYS resulted in a heading deviation.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the takeoff roll my student added full power and at 1200 RPM to about 1500 RPM the engine cut out and I heard it; so I said 'my controls'; looked at engine gauges as I said abort takeoff. The engine gauges were green; so I called tower and asked to get instructions.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported rejecting the takeoff when the engine 'cut out' on the takeoff roll.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was conducting OTJ at R28. Aircraft X to BWI; was failing on the automated handoff to ZDC. The EDST (En-route Decision Support Tool) displayed a UTM (un-transmitted message) message that we nor the D-side had noticed due to the complexity and volume of traffic. When attempting a manual handoff to ZDC they advised us that they didn't have a flight plan because they had Aircraft Y from BWI that they needed to make a manual handoff to us on. The aircraft with the same call signs passed approximately 8 miles apart just NE of GSO. The ramifications of this go without saying.Demand that the air carriers not let this happen.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller reports of a handoff issues with ZDC.  They couldn't handoff a specific aircraft because there was another aircraft with the same call sign that ZDC was attempting to handoff to ZTL.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X called airborne off of ZZZ for his clearance to ZZZ1. I handed the strip to the Radar Controller; who radar identified and cleared the aircraft as filed and to maintain his assigned altitude of 7000 feet. I updated the aircraft's route in the computer. None of us pulled up the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) chart. The altitude did not set off any alarm bells in my head. As we routinely see aircraft in this vicinity at 7000 feet; though most often on an airway. A few minutes later; after the aircraft was level; I noticed the MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning) alert flashing for a 7700 foot MIA. I physically pointed to the alerting aircraft on the scope. The Radar Controller turned the aircraft 15 degrees right for terrain; then assigned a heading of 090. The MSAW alert stopped shortly thereafter and the Radar Controller re cleared the aircraft on course. I could not determine from where I was sitting if the aircraft was in; on the boundary; or just outside the boundary of the MIA. At some point; the Radar Controller said he didn't think the 7700 foot MIA went so far south. I too did not think the higher MIA went as far south as it did. This is an unfortunate reminder to read every strip and not become complacent with what looks familiar. A subtle difference in course can have huge implications. I also need to remind myself that even though I am learning a sector; it is okay to look up information again and again; even if my trainers do not seem concerned. It would have been helpful if the MSAW alert has gone off sooner.




Synopsis: ZSE Center Controller reported they cleared an aircraft to an altitude below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Electronic Library (other than Nav database)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I must report that in my opinion the iPAD is not ready for prime time. As a very experienced computer user (and iPAD owner from day one); I feel I have a pretty good grasp of the intended concept and can clearly use an iPAD to its fullest extent. Within minutes of testing the company iPAD I quickly determined the SEARCH feature to be useless and limiting when searching for key elements such as 'stabilized approach'. This only sent me to a chapter reference not to the page I needed to review. Searching is one of the most important features of any electronic document reader and when it is limited in capability as the current feature is; it becomes useless. In a time crunch one might find during an irregular procedure; this thing is useless IMO. The 'bookmark' feature does not allow any title to be assigned and therefore more than one bookmark simply appears as an unidentifiable mini icon that cannot be discerned from other bookmarks (icons) that may have been archived. You therefore loose the purpose of quickly referencing a bookmark for quick resource. I also lost my position several times; as the iPAD software would randomly go to some other chapter when I touched the left arrow on the screen designed to hide the menu and open a full page view. I can reproduce this anytime for those who doubt me. It appears to me that the Company has again chosen the CHEAPEST proprietary version of some textual software that only mimics the capability of Adobe.pdf presentations. Simply putting the downloadable company Adobe files (FOM or FM) on my PERSONAL iPAD provides a quicker; better and SAFER reference than the pathetic software used on the Company iPAD application. I would not even hand these things out until they get a little more serious about the use of this product in flight. As far as I am concerned it sits on the shelf at home until they want it back or fix the issues. There is also no functional training on how to use the iPAD document reader. I can only imagine someone trying to find the support information in flight and then losing the page or not knowing how to restore the page while distracted.




Synopsis: A320 Captain laments the search ability of his Company issued iPAD flight manual.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAN.ARTCC, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was approximately 15S of BET inbound when another target with the same beacon code appeared in close proximity. A collision alert was generated and continued for several minutes. Aircraft X is ADS-B equipped; and this appeared to be a conflict between the aircraft's two transponders. Repeated nuisance conflict alerts desensitize controllers and CICs/FLMs. This can lead to complacency and degradation of response time for legitimate conflicts.Nuisance conflict alerts (between a single aircraft's ADS-B and radar targets) are an ongoing problem at ZAN. Perhaps a software patch or equipment upgrade would solve this issue? I also filed a facility trouble report for this event (which includes the aircraft flight progress strip).




Synopsis: ZAN Front Line Manager reported of an aircraft had traffic with another target that was unidentified. FLM reported this was the same aircraft that was ADS-B equipped. FLM reported this type of nuisance conflict alert happens quite often and would like something to be done about it.
Date: 201506
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying 'C' position; and once we arrived at the gate the 'A' Flight Attendant (FA) made the 'Disarm and Crosscheck Doors for Arrival' PA. I assumed the 'A' had seen the jetway moving towards the door so I got up and disarmed the R1 door and crosschecked with the 'A'. After opening the front door; I saw the Captain open his front window and speak to the Ops Agent. That's when I noticed the jetway was still far away. The Captain turned back to me and stated that we wouldn't be able to deplane for 10 min due to the arrival of another international flight and the jetway would remain pulled back. I informed the PAX; then told the 'A' that the doors really should remain armed until the jet bridge arrives; and that the PA shouldn't be completed until the jet bridge has started moving towards the aircraft.The 'A' did not re-Arm their door; and no PA was made for the 'B' to re-Arm their door; but I re-ARMED my door to maintain a viable/usable exit. Once the jetway started moving towards the door; the 'A' let me know and I DISARMED the R1 door and it was crosschecked by 'A'.At no time did I 'make' 'A' ARM their door; nor did I notify 'B' their doors should be re-ARMED. There were PAX nearby and I didn't feel comfortable starting a debate about door statuses.Our company has not done a good job educating FAs about when doors need to be armed and why they need to be armed. They also have not educated FAs that the 'A's' PA is the only indicator of ARMING/DISARMING. Instead; procedure changes are always buried inside of revisions without explanations.... so I can't explain things to fellow FAs in front of PAX during situations. I just have to be prepared to act. I informed my coworker and was ready to blow my slide if needed and call the 'B'. Keep in mind; it could be easy for any 'C' to forget they'd re-ARMED their door because my 'A' never said 'DISARM doors' again; but I was well-aware I had. That PA forces you to stop and focus. We need explanations of things; not just procedural changes. I wanted this documented because while I know I could have done more; I didn't feel it was appropriate in front of PAX and would've have created angst with crew which would have been a worse distraction and taken the focus off of safety and been less impactful.




Synopsis: B737 FA reported the aircraft was at the gate; but waited for jet bridge with doors disarmed for about ten minutes.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Was training on Quartz. A Hawker checked on descending via the GEELA RNAV STAR. He was approaching PUNTT and my trainee said he looks like he'll miss the restriction at PUNTT. I keyed up and asked the pilot if he had the NOTAM (crossing PUNTT at 10;000 and 250 KTS); he replied negative. I issued descend and maintain 8;000 and we pointed out the aircraft to Santan. Get the NOTAM for the GEELA arrival issued so that each individual pilot does not have to manually load this restriction. It is unsatisfactory; the procedure should be coded by the avionics manufacturers. Isn't this the point of 'descend via'; let the aircraft fly its profile? If the crew misses the NOTAM; or notices it late; they have to scramble to program it in. I am a big proponent of the RNAV arrivals; but things like this make it hard to continue 'talking the RNAVs up' to my peers. Hope it gets fixed soon.




Synopsis: P50 Controller described a probable airspace infraction when traffic inbound on the GEELA RNAV STAR failed to adhere to the PUNTT crossing restriction; the reporter noting the restrictions should be programed in the aircraft avionics equipment and reliance upon NOTAM information dissemination terminated.