elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: During the arrival briefing for Runway 01L; a discrepancy between the printed Jeppesen page 11-1 and 11-1A and the aircraft database displayed on the CDU for Runway 01L was noted. The Jeppesen page shows the FAF altitude for CUTMO to be 2;600A; and the aircraft database shows CUTMO at 2;700A. As we neared the field; we queried the Controller as to the altitude they showed for CUTMO; and the Controller stated '2;600 feet.' I believe there is an error with the current Company database for MKE Runway 01L FAF altitude.




Synopsis: An air carrier crew noted that their FMS showed crossing the MKE ILS Runway 01L final approach fix CUTMO at 2;700 feet while the commercial chart and ATC indicated crossing it at 2;600 feet.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Aircraft component: Altimeter
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: We were executing the RNAV GPS D approach into MFR. We crossed BRKET at 10;000 FT; then descended to 8;500 FT and were established level at 8;500 prior to SUXCI. We got a 'TERRAIN PULL UP' warning. We executed a missed approach and requested vectors for the ILS approach into MFR. Surface temperature at MFR had just dropped from 1 to 0 degrees C; and we neglected to temperature compensate. ASOS at MFR does not broadcast weather when ATIS is not broadcast. We were given weather from Center just prior to being cleared for the approach. A post flight debrief of this event was performed; and I determined that temperature compensation at that position would have put us at about 8;900 FT. Charted terrain where the event occurred shows a terrain feature in excess of 7;000 FT.The cause of this event was the flight crew's failure to anticipate a temperature drop into the temperature compensation range.




Synopsis: The flight crew of a commuter aircraft believe their failure to 'temperature compensate' for a one degree celsius drop in OAT was the proximate cause of an EGPWS Terrain warning experienced approaching SUXCI while performing the RNAV (GPS)-D IAP to MFR.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SBAZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL370 we checked in with Amazonica Center with call sign and Flight Level. We were given a Climb clearance to FL380 by a female controller. Radio conditions were 5/5. I read back '[Call Sign] Departing FL370; Climbing FL380; [Call Sign]'. The climb was accomplished and we leveled off at FL380. Almost immediately; both the Captain and I recognized TCAS traffic Co-Altitude at approximately 40NM and 12 O'clock . The CA initiated an evasive turn to the right while I simultaneously contacted Amazonica ATC for clarification. Upon contact with Amazonica the Radio conditions had deteriorated to 2/2 with the normal Amazonica Echo; after a short delay we were able to understand another climb clearance to FL400; I advised unable; due to weight. Shortly thereafter a male controller issued a descent to FL370 clearance. He also advised us to use [registration N-number] for future comm with his sector. The traffic was [another air carrier]; they also initiated an evasive right turn. At no time did we get a Resolution Advisory/Traffic Advisory from TCAS. After the incident; while back on course; we observed [two Company aircraft] also on our same sector frequency; while not able to read them we were able to read ATC in communication with them.The radio conditions have been an ongoing problem in many [Amazonica] sectors with many controlling agencies. Evidently they simulcast on a number of frequencies and there is a terrible echo that we have had to work around for many; many years. Normally it is an inconvenience that we work around; but obviously in this case; safety was the overriding concern. I would like to see an FAA test flight program established with host countries to identify and eliminate the problem. Also; if the US carriers could coordinate with each other and foreign carriers to eliminate call sign similarities to the maximum extent possible it would be helpful when unsatisfactory radio conditions arise.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported communication difficulties with Amazonica Center led to a traffic conflict at FL380.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were in VMC conditions; and were advised of a VFR target crossing us; 500 ft below us. We were advised that the VFR traffic had us in sight and 'would maintain visual separation.'He crossed slightly off our left wing and was 400 ft below us. As he closed on us; we got a 'monitor vertical speed' RA. He then climbed slightly to 300 ft below us.Responding to the TCAS/FD command box; we climbed at approximately 100-200 feet per minute to 8200 ft until clear of conflict. We advised ATC and returned to 8000 ft when clear of the conflict.We had the traffic in sight; however; followed the TCAS RA guidance.The event occurred because ATC failed to provide traffic separation with VFR traffic. He advised us that the other traffic would assume responsibility for separation. However; the other pilot failed to maintain an adequate distance from us; setting off the TCAS.




Synopsis: EMB-190 Captain reported on descent to LGA he took evasive action from a VFR aircraft that was supposed to maintain visual separation.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Second reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Passenger; Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With 10 minutes until landing in ZZZ Airport; Flight Attendant (FA)-2 and I smelled a strong chemical odor. We immediately notified the flight deck. It originated in the aft galley through the air vents. Passengers near the aft galley could also smell the odor and reported it to us. Maintenance came on board after the passengers deplaned. I filled out the cabin odor sheet and gave a copy to the Captain.


Second narrative: I was the number 2 on this flight and in the aft galley with the number 4 at the time of incident. About 15 minutes prior to landing I smelled a strong odor of what initially smelled like vomit. The smell then changed and smelled musty and moist; like when you turn on an air conditioner after it hasn't been used. The number 4 smelled it as well and called to notify the Captain. I felt dizzy for about 5 seconds but that could have also been due to us descending. Upon landing a passenger used the lav and reported that he smelled something too but thought it was coming out of the air vents in the lav. I was subjected to the odor for about 25 minutes.


Synopsis: A321 flight attendants reported a fumes event described as a 'chemical odor' during approach. Flight crew was immediately notified and the flight was met by Maintenance at gate arrival after a safe landing was accomplished.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing out to XX at ZZZ; Tower gave us our takeoff clearance with a turn to heading 310. The instructor non-flying pilot I was with read back the clearance saying left turn to 310. After departure the non-flying pilot bugged a left turn to 310; and I began the left turn. When we checked in with departure they notified us it was supposed to be a right turn; and instructed us to stop the turn. I'm not aware of any traffic conflicts that resulted from the turn. The non-flying pilot is confident he heard left turn; I'm only confident I heard him read back left turn.I'm new to the airplane and have not flown much in the past few months due to the COVID-19 virus pandemic. The left turn to 310 off of XX seemed odd at the time; but due to the decreased air traffic I did not question it; as I should have. I'm not sure if it was pilot or ATC error; but I felt a safety report was warranted.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported turning the wrong direction to a heading issued by ATC. The pilot stated they were new to the airplane and had not flown much recently due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We have a new STAR into CYUL. The arrival fix was ABCOT and now it is EBDOT. Regardless of how carefully ATC enunciates and how closely we listen to the read back we are occasionally missing it. These fixes are too close in spelling and enunciation. In the situation I am referring to the aircraft had the new CARTER1 STAR but turned off of it and crossed ABCOT at 110 instead of EBDOT at 110. I would recommend changing EBDOT to something less similar to ABCOT.




Synopsis: ZBW Controller voiced concern regard a new arrival fix for CYUL noting it is too close in spelling and enunciation; causing confusion even with vigilant readback hearback efforts.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: UES.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D UES
ATC / advisory: Tower UES
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
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: I departed on Runway 21 at 02C and on my upwind leg at roughly an altitude of 1;600 feet MSL I called Waukesha Tower; gave them a position report; and asked for a frequency for flight following. Shortly; after I took off from 02C I noticed a helicopter departing Waukesha County Airport and the helicopter seemed to be on an east heading. I started my turn to the west towards Madison and informed Waukesha proactively that I saw the helicopter and called the traffic 'no factor' because I saw the helicopter traffic initially head east. Waukesha Tower then informed me that the helicopter and my aircraft were on perpendicular converging courses. I saw the helicopter start to head north as I rolled level on a west heading passing through roughly 1;900 feet MSL. To avoid the traffic I then started a slight descent in an effort to create additional spacing also being mindful not to drop below 1;000 feet AGL over the city of Waukesha. Waukesha Tower at that time informed me that the helicopter had me in sight and then the helicopter flew over the top of my aircraft at altitude unknown. After transitioning out of Waukesha's Class Delta airspace I was given a frequency for Milwaukee Approach to proceed on VFR flight following. No other issues of significance occurred upon the remainder of my flight.After discussing this scenario with my instructor we determined that I could have made closed left traffic again at 02C and exited the pattern to the west following a complete downwind leg for Runway 21. After doing so then I could have then called Waukesha Tower and requested a frequency for flight following. This may have provided additional spacing between my aircraft and the helicopter traffic. However it could have also put the helicopter traffic behind my aircraft and would have limited my visibility to its position.In the heat of the situation; I was expecting the helicopter to break to the right assuming no additional traffic or safety hazard in accordance with CFR 91.113(d) and remain clear of my traffic given I was to the helicopter's right converging across its path of flight from right; east; to left; west. But later understood that the helicopter may have not been operating under Part 91.




Synopsis: PA28 student pilot reported an NMAC with a helicopter in the vicinity of UES airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During VFR approach the flaps were extended on schedule. FCTL ECAM flap fault displayed when flaps moved to position 2. Flaps locked in position between 1 and 2. As per ECAM instructions attempted to cycle flaps with no success. Flaps remained locked between 1 and 2 for the remainder of the flight. A go around was executed; an emergency was declared; and vectors were requested. The aircraft was stabilized at 9;000 feet. The ECAM was completed; the QRC was referenced and it was determined that a safe landing was possible. ATC provided vectors to final; an uneventful approach and landing was completed without further issue. The flap handle was left in the directed position 3.




Synopsis: An A319 crew was alerted by ECAM to a flap extension fault during a visual approach when the flaps locked in position between 1 and 2. Following procedure; recycling the flap handle did not correct the problem; a go-around was initiated; an emergency was declared; and the aircraft returned to land uneventfully.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.TRACON, TN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed Runway 18R. RNAV departure RNAV CHETO. Wake RECAT category D Aircraft. Aircraft Y next departure Runway 18L. On an ELVIS4 SID. Given a 200 heading climbing to 5;000 ft. I was the trainee; and was under impression this would not require in trail wake separation (RECAT F behind a D requires 4 miles). Aircraft Y acquired with roughly 3.5 miles of separation. Additionally; Aircraft Y took the heading much quicker than anticipated; which didn't really make a difference. Aircraft was shipped with approximately 3.8 miles of separation; thinking that in trail spacing wasn't needed; only giving 3 miles. I will be more aware and mindful to verify any types of separation needed moving forward.




Synopsis: Memphis Tower Developmental reported that failure to provide the correct wake turbulence standards resulted in a loss of separation.
Date: 202102
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were turning the corner on Taxiway 1 to takeoff on runway XXL; but braking action was nil and the nose gear exited the taxiway.




Synopsis: B747 Captain reported that while making a turn; the nose gear exited the taxiway and braking action was NIL.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was 40 miles west of BLD VOR at FL330 requesting FL350. Aircraft Y was 40 miles NE of BLD VOR at FL340 requesting FL360. Both aircraft were inbound to BLD VOR. I issued climb clearance to Aircraft X to FL340 and shortly thereafter; I issued a climb clearance to Aircraft Y to FL360. I observed Aircraft Y Mode C at FL350; and issued a climb clearance to Aircraft X to FL350. Both aircraft were over 30 miles apart converging to BLD VOR. I noticed Aircraft Y Mode C level at FL355 and inquired to pilot if he was climbing. He advised he was and informed me that his last 500 feet would be a less than standard climb. I issued traffic to both aircraft. Aircraft Y advised he had traffic in sight and Aircraft X said he was responding to a TCAS event. I acknowledged.




Synopsis: ZLA Controller describes a climb clearance given to an aircraft and the aircraft's climb rate changes the last 500 feet causing another aircraft to have an RA and the Controller to have a loss of separation.