elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were operating the flight after a delay due to weather and crew placement. We had received an ATC reroute prior to pushback. An ACARS message was sent to Dispatch informing them of the reroute and we waited at the gate to confirm we had enough fuel for the new route. Dispatch sent us the new fuel numbers confirming we did not need additional fuel.Once we were in line for takeoff; we received an ACARS message from Dispatch saying we needed to return to the gate and get more fuel. They apparently never read the original message we sent giving them the new route. While taxiing back to the gate; we shut down engine 1 in line with company SOPs. Once we parked at the gate; the flight crew became distracted with other duties such as calling operations; monitoring jet bridge movement; communicating with the cabin crew and passengers; and coordinating with Dispatch on our new fuel load. Neither flight crew member called for the parking checklist. This caused the number 2 engine to never get shut down while parked at the gate. The engine was running throughout the entire fueling process which is against company SOPs. The flight crew did not become aware of the issue until we had pushed back from the gate and started engines.Once we became aware of the issue we both admitted to the failure of not running the checklist and becoming too distracted. Flight crew became distracted when a non-standard event occurred. Had to return to the gate to load more fuel after Dispatcher became aware of ATC reroute. The flight crew failed to complete the parking checklist after returning to the gate. Distraction with other tasks and duties caused the checklist to not be completed. Don't let yourself become too distracted that you forget to follow normal procedures. If the Captain doesn't call for a checklist at the appropriate time; prompt him for it. When things happen outside of the operational norm; don't get dragged down into the weeds without following normal procedures. Always complete the appropriate checklists even when things go differently than normal.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported the crew failed to shut down Number 2 engine at the gate while refueling because of distractions and workload.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA; Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Staffing; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I plugged into the Assist position for about five minutes because two sectors were combined and were fairly busy. I was getting rid of old flight strips and trying to keep radar tags off each other and ensure all handoffs were being made appropriately when two aircraft began conflict alerting. The Radar Controller hadn't called traffic and when he saw that the IFR aircraft we were talking to was climbing into a VFR aircraft that was actually descending but not identified and not talking to us the IFR aircraft instead responded that he was responding to an RA. After the aircraft advised they were responding to the RA the IFR aircraft was able to get the pilot in sight; the aircraft came within 200 feet or so of each other but their targets were definitively merging. The traffic was complex but it just so happened that the VFR aircraft we weren't talking to began descent.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported a NMAC; after opening a Radar Assist position at combined sectors the two aircraft began flashing conflict alert.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Manuals; Airport
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: NorCal was running what seemed to be straight ILS approaches; while advertising Simultaneous Offset Instrument Approaches (SOIA). They ran many pairs that collapsed below 3 miles; where we could see the second arrival and provide Tower visual separation. Then Aircraft Y checked in as Aircraft X was about to cross the threshold at 4.95 miles in trail. I do not believe that NorCal accomplished visual separation; the question was not asked; and I pointed this out to the CIC to say they (NorCal) were running them tight. Not long after this occurred; I called over to advise the Final Controller that we would not be able to provide visual separation the two aircraft joining final who were not 3 miles apart. The NorCal Final Controller then advised me that we were on Closely Spaced Parallel (CSP) approaches. I said that is not what we are advertising. They told me they were running CSP until SOIA. By this time; I had an estimated twenty-five minutes on position and the Local Controller had about twenty-two. Neither one of us were aware they were ever running CSP approaches. There has been a lot of confusion surrounding this and someone is going to end up in a bad situation.Clarify what approaches are being run and run those until we see the next offering and only then put it on the ATIS.




Synopsis: SFO Controller reported NorCal was utilizing a parallel approach procedure without notifying SFO Tower or advertising the procedure on ATIS as required.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Aircraft: Globemaster (C-17)
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Instructor; Approach
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Manuals; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: An aircraft was inbound to Elmendorf AFB (EDF) via ILS Runway 6. This final approach course is protected from VFR traffic via FAR-93. Coordination with Merrill Field (MRI) Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) by landline is required to allow/restrict aircraft VFR from penetrating the FAR-93 with or without coordination. I called MRI to make them 'red light'; instead of saying 'red light' I said 'green light'.Stopping departures and restricting Lake Hood (LHD) VFR traffic into and out of the FAR-93 is an automated button. We could possibly use the same button or another button to indicate red lights for MRI and ANC.


Second narrative: The red light / green light with MRI has been an item of concern for at least 4 years; several fixes have been attempted; and all have had failures.


Synopsis: Two A11 TRACON controllers reported a communication breakdown with the nearby MRI Tower Controller during the coordination of a military airport arrival.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On approach to RWY 25L at LAX; [we] were originally cleared the Hollywood 1 arrival and then the ILS 25L. The MCP panel [was] set correctly after we were on an approach segment. We started getting some wake turbulence from the aircraft ahead of us. First Officer disconnected autopilot to get out of the turbulence. [We were] then told to only descend to 4;000 feet and look for traffic at 2 o'clock. [We were] unable to see traffic and asked to slow due to wake turbulence. [We were] slowed to 180 knots leveled at 4; 000 feet which started to get up high on the glide slope. [We were] than given 3;400 feet; then 3;100 feet and slow down; report traffic in sight. We were high on the approach and unable to see the traffic; so I asked to get pulled off the approach or cleared for the approach. [We were] to turn to a 140 heading and climb to 4;000 feet. High work load as we tried to comply with instructions; fly the aircraft; and listen to ATC. Cleaned up aircraft turned and climbed but went to 4.400 feet as the new altitude was set in MCP panel and leveled off and descended to cleared altitude. Finished the go around procedure and sequenced for another approach. Was told they needed to get the other aircraft ahead of us due to a medical emergency. High work load on the go-around with just a small altitude change.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported an altitude overshoot during a go-around at LAX.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 119
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I had [priority requested] by my number 2 aircraft in my sequence who was following a slow moving citation jet. I vectored out the citation and made the [priority] aircraft number one and gave them direct to the airport. After achieving what I initially thought was enough space between the 2 IFR aircraft I turned in the citation jet and soon realized I didn't have enough room behind the [priority aircraft]. I vectored the citation back out and leveled him at 14000 feet by the time I had my spacing he was in conflict with the jump zone I called traffic to both the sky dive aircraft and the citation I then turned the citation an additional 30 degrees right to clear the confliction of the sky dive aircraft however he was still in the sky dive area. Soon after the citation began to descend I told him to maintain altitude but he advised me he was responding to a TCAS RA. He descended and exited the sky dive area without further incident. During the incident I had a [priority aircraft] I was coordinating with the CIC and approach as well as some frequency congestion working a high and low combined at the time. As well as working a much larger scale than normal made the conflict harder to see.I shouldn't have assumed the sky dive aircraft would have ceased his sky dive activities when calling traffic to him; I believe I failed to tell him the traffic would enter the jump area as well as allowing the IFR aircraft to descend to an altitude that would put him underneath the sky divers jumping from 14500 ft. I should have gone further away from the jump zone not just separating from the aircraft.




Synopsis: ATC Center Controller reported vectoring an IFR aircraft for sequencing behind a priority aircraft through a parachute jump zone and below the altitude of the jumpers.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Following ATC instructions; I was in a right downwind for Runway 33; cleared to land Runway 33. Suddenly; another Cessna cut in front of us at the same altitude. I estimate that there was only 100 FT of horizontal separation; and no vertical separation; at the nearest point. The plane looked as though it was turning from a right crosswind for Runway 27R into a right downwind; but the pilot had turned crosswind before the end of Runway 27R. I heard the other pilot advise ATC that he had spotted us; but was not previously aware of us. I was also not aware that another plane was in the pattern for Runway 27R. After landing; I asked Oakland Tower for their landline number. I called the Tower and advised the Tower that there had been a loss of separation; and that neither of the Cessna pilots appeared to have been advised of the presence of the other; and neither reported the other in sight. The Cessna in the 27R pattern should have been instructed to continue upwind until I was clear of the pattern and had landed on 33. The Controller I spoke to said that we were in Class C and so we were being separated; but we were at the same altitude and there did not appear to be sufficient horizontal separation. I am not sure that the Controller understood how close the near-miss was. This incident could easily have resulted in a mid-air collision. Because Runway 33 and 27R are both right traffic patterns; it is possible for planes to converge in the patterns if both are in use. At a minimum; ATC must ensure that each pilot is aware of other aircraft and that the pilots can apply visual separation. If not; then ATC should ensure that a pilot in the 27R pattern extends his/her upwind until separation is assured.




Synopsis: Cessna landing Runway 33 at OAK experienced an NMAC with pattern traffic for Runway 27R; no ATC traffic advisories were issued to either aircraft.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
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: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On base to a visual approach to Runway into airport; we were configuring for landing. As the PF commanded flaps 15; we noticed the left flap was indicating 3 and the right 5. We requested a delay vector with Tower and were directed to contact Approach and started the Trailing Flap Asymmetry Checklist. After the completion of the checklist; prior to the deferred items; we positioned the flap lever to the closest setting to the less extended flap; flaps 2. At some point after positioning the flap lever to 2 the flaps deployed symmetrically to 5. The Captain and I had a discussion about whether to run the Trailing Edge Flap Disagree Checklist and decided against it since we had adequate landing performance; a symmetric flap condition; and didn't want to risk another asymmetry. The Captain gave me control of the aircraft and we started turning back for the approach while he made a couple PAs to the Passengers and informed the Flight Attendants. We also [advised ATC] to have equipment standing by in case of hot brakes or any unforeseen problems. The landing was uneventful but the target speed was 161 knots. We cleared the runway; talked to the Passengers; and taxied to the gate leaving the flap lever at the 2 position. As we exited the runway; we noticed the flaps had retracted to the 2 position symmetrically. We also noticed we now had a PSEU light. Once at the gate we wrote the defect up and waited for Maintenance to arrive.


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


Synopsis: With flaps commanded at 15; the flap indicator showed left flap at 3 and right flap at 5. There was no control issue so during approach; positioned flap lever to 2; the flaps deployed to 5. After landing; the flap lever was left at 2 and the flaps retracted to 2 symmetrically.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CDW.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D CDW
ATC / advisory: Tower CDW
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I flew from ZZZ to N07 and as usual I transition CDW class D on the way. I was in totally clear conditions; 20+ miles visibility; no clouds. I saw N07 and CDW airports from many miles out. When I called up CDW tower to ask for a transition clearance; he replied with my call sign but then stated that the field was IFR. When I told him that I had the field and N07 in sight several miles out; his reply again was 'field is IFR'. Not thinking much about it I continued as he had responded with my call sign I determined I was cleared to enter class D. When I was overhead the field; a helicopter departing from MMU also asked for a transition and CDW tower controller told him 'field is IFR circumnavigate class D'. The helicopter pilot was puzzled as well as he also was in clear VFR conditions. The CDW tower controller then asked me where I was and I told him at 1600 feet above the field in clear conditions. The controller then in a somewhat unfriendly tone said 'I told you the field is IFR and you have to circumnavigate the Class D'. My reply to him was that he never told me to circumnavigate. At that point I had already lined up for N07 and asked to switch frequencies which the tower controller never responded to. Since I needed to self-announce my intentions on the N07 CTAF I switched frequencies. I don't know what weather information CDW was using; but the weather conditions at the time were perfectly VFR.




Synopsis: A single engine general aviation pilot reported a miscommunication with ATC when a transition through CDW's Class D airspace was requested.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
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: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Number 1 generator failed. Followed QRH; would not reset. Attempted to start APU at FL300; would not start. Made 2 more attempts at FL220 and FL200. APU failed to start. We [requested priority handling] for operating on one generator. Proceeded to land without further incident.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported that a generator failed and the APU would not start.