elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the visual approach; already established on Runway 18R localizer descending out of 4;000 FT showing about 170 knots. Aircraft Y was about 7 miles northwest of Aircraft X at the same altitude. I told Aircraft Y to fly heading 150 until established on the Runway 18C localizer cleared visual approach Runway 18C. Aircraft Y was not issued a speed since he was the only aircraft going to 18C (showing about 230 knots). I was using the rule 15 degree course divergence (actually had 30 degrees) with Aircraft X on a 180 and Aircraft Y on a 150 until established on the 18C localizer. They both were on different runways with 18R and 18C. Aircraft Y got within about 2 miles before he passed Aircraft X and established on runway 18C. I was counseled by a Supervisor that this was a deal because I needed 45 degrees divergence. I do not understand this. I do this all the time and I am unsure what I did wrong. I am not sure who to talk to about this so I am filling out this report. Also many supervisors are saying I need to apply wake turbulence separation which I also believe to be untrue since I was not near the landing threshold. Basically I was using 15 degrees divergence until both were established on their localizers and cleared visual approach and I was told this is wrong. We need to all be on the same page with this. I train many people and want to make sure I am teaching them right.




Synopsis: CLT TRACON Controller describes arrival situation to parallel runways using what he thought was 15 degree course divergence. Controller had a loss of separation.
Date: 201403
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other Preflight Planning
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At crew change First Officer (F/O) did walk around and found the inboard flaps on both sides to be down approximately 5-10 degrees. Outboard flaps were stowed. When we checked the gauges in the cockpit; they indicated flaps 'Up'; everything normal. We didn't fly the aircraft in; so I don't know what caused the damage. But if the F/O didn't catch it on the walk around the outcome would have been very different. System malfunction; flight controls; flaps.




Synopsis: Captain reports that during a walk around; the First Officer (F/O) found both Inboard flaps down approximately 5-10 degrees with the outboard flaps stowed. Cause of damage unknown. Gauges in cockpit indicated flaps 'Up' and everything normal on the B737 aircraft.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading 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 Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the DSNEE1 RNAV arrival from EMLLD. We checked the airport weather and determined that SNA was landing on runway 20R. We were cleared to descend via the DSNEE1 arrival. Reading the DSNEE1 arrival plate it says on the last paragraph 'landing SNA runway 20R: after DSNEE proceed on the RNAV (RNP) RWY 20R approach'. So we expected to shoot the RNAV 20R approach. At DSNEE we received the wrong frequency from ATC approach so we crossed DSNEE at 8000 then 20 seconds later received the correct ATC frequency and called and asked 'should we proceed to the RNAV 20R approach course'. We were told to continue descent via the DSNEE1. The radio was under heavy traffic and I asked 'where should we proceed as the arrival plate doesn't give direction'. After landing I called the controlling ATC agency and explained my understanding of the DSNEE1 plate. They said that we should have followed the third paragraph on the DSNEE1 plate that states 'landing SNA: from DSNEE on track 235 to JWARD; then on heading 260 or as assigned by ATC. Expect radar vectors to ILS or RNAV (RNP) RWY 20R final approach course'.Verdict: the DSNEE1 RNAV arrival should state that the last paragraph is only for when ATC clears the plane for the RNAV RWY 20R prior to DSNEE intersection. Otherwise pilots see 'landing SNA runway 20R'. To us that means follow this procedure to runway 20R. So we never went to JWARD and never turned H260. The ATC controller turned us to H235 then back to H320. We then were only 3 miles in trail of a B737 in IMC. We were never told to expect the ILS. The ATIS said landing runway ILS 20R but we read the arrival incorrectly from DSNEE so we were expecting the RNAV approach. So we had to scramble to load the ILS approach into the glass and the correct frequencies. Creating an unsafe rushing situation. The DSNEE1 arrival needs to be changed to read: landing SNA runway 20R: only after being cleared for RNAV RWY 20R do you use this transition. Otherwise proceed to JWARD.




Synopsis: Lear 60 Captain reported misunderstanding the arrival route on the DSNEE1 after passing DSNEE and the type of approach to expect.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Previous shift found crack in Left Main Landing Gear (MLG) Truck Shield. Myself and others were assigned to replace Truck shield. [We] could not find specific Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) instructions. [We] chose to use part of AMM 32-11-18 which specifically talks about Shield and Electric Harness Removal and Installation (R/I). We did not disturb harness at all. During [Shift] Turnover there was confusion and not clear direction. After the process I realized the AMM previously instructed [removal] of the wheels and brakes and we did not accomplish. Our Air Carrier [should] provide a Repair Document for cracks in the shield. Also; provide AMM for Truck Shield replacement.




Synopsis: An Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports he could not find specific instructions in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) to Remove and Replace (R/R) a cracked lower Truck Shield on the Left Main Landing Gear (MLG) of a B767-300 aircraft. He decided to use part of the AMM to accomplish the R/R of the shield but realized later he did not remove the brakes and wheels as called out for in previous sections of the AMM.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; Icing; 0
Light: Night
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Flight was in cruise; turbulence was moderate with strong mountain wave which was causing difficulty maintaining within three hundred feet of assigned altitude. Talking to Controller and aircraft in front on same course that reported ice at 8;500 and above and bases at 8;500. Descended from MEA of 9;000 from IMC to VFR conditions. Outside air temp was 5c during descent and temp was reported to controller. Enter VFR conditions for around 5 min just below bases could see due to lights from city below and behind. At that time turbulence increased and large down draft accompanied by rain started. It was above freezing but it built up immediately. Thinking super cooled water droplets. Pitot heat was applied immediately but was overwhelmed and airspeed was lost. Ice was building quickly. Turbulence and wave were very intense. Control was maintained but course and altitude varied during static failure seemed like a long time; looking at the flight aware track the time was probably less than a few seconds. Controller issued a turn clearance for terrain 350. Made two calls to ATC for a turn back to airport. One other aircraft responded to my call and center then responded with vectors back to airport. I believe either the ice built up on antenna or the radio was bumped; I appeared to lose radio for a short moment switch coms and contact was restored. Thank Controller for his help and cancel IFR and landing was performed. Ice melted; flight resumed few minutes later VFR without event. Fixed base operator contacted said Controller gave number to call. I have been flying for over 30 years in the IFR system and have experienced icing but never as it started right there on me. From nothing with 10 plus visibility to intense freezing rain above freezing level. Hearing the other aircraft in front of me there was no cause for concern. Contributing factor was turning pitot heat off when entering VFR conditions; losing airspeed caused losing focus at a very bad time.




Synopsis: Grumman-American AA5 Pilot reported encountering icing conditions while on an IFR flight plan; descended and diverted for non eventful landing.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working and had just arrived to start my shift. I had been working the sector less than 10 minutes when I cleared Aircraft X to cross ZZZ at or above 14;000 ft. and issued an approach clearance for the ILS approach. The pilot read back a crossing restriction of 11;000 ft.; which I did not catch. I was relieved from the position for a break; and after leaving the control room I was told that [the flight] had descended below the MIA (Minimum IFR Altitude) prior to reaching ZZZ and was issued a low altitude alert. I do not have any recommendations.




Synopsis: A Center Controller reported a flight crew descended below the minimum IFR altitude after he missed the crews incorrect read back of the assigned altitude.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Extra 200/300 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing North on 'A' started left to right 'S' turns and impacted southbound taxing aircraft. Left side & prop on both aircraft. I did not see southbound traffic. Had made a call on UNICOM of taxi north on 'A'; he stated he saw me coming 'S' turning; then he stopped in the taxiway; I continued 'S' turns and did not see him.




Synopsis: An EA300 pilot; making 'S' turns; experiences a ground collision with another aircraft that had stopped on the taxiway facing the opposite direction.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ground SJC
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: BMRNG 1 chart has a top altitude published of FL190 but the initial climb portion states; Climb heading 123 degrees to 3;000; expect........ I and the Pilot Not Flying (PNF) found this to be confusing and had to question ATC. They say many pilot deviations had occurred over this and thanked us for asking. This procedure should be clarified.




Synopsis: A Captain reported confusion with the SJC BMRNG1 procedure chart.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
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; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 45 minutes into the flight; crew received a 'Fuel Qty/Used Chk' Level 2 alert.  The aircraft was in cruise flight with no other adverse conditions.  I was the RFO and had just begun scheduled rest period when called to the cockpit for this event.  The Captain continued as flying pilot with autoflight engaged and directed checklist use and confirmation of all actions related to the Fuel Qty/Used Chk checklist.  After running the checklist; we concurred that the #1 engine was the cause of excessive fuel loss and shut it down as directed by the checklist.  We initially requested holding to work the problem but once we decided to shut down the engine; we requested an initial vector to return. (Nearest suitable airport via the checklist)  We declared an emergency; dumped approximately 75;000 pounds of fuel; and proceeded to ZZZZ (also our airport of departure) where we made an uneventful 2 engine landing.  We turned the aircraft over to Maintenance. Possible fuel leak down line of shutoff valve.


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


Synopsis: MD11 flight crew receives a  'Fuel Qty/Used Chk' Level 2 alert.  It is determined that a fuel leak may exist in the number one engine and it is shut down and the flight returns to the departure airport.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: One of my Captains tried to contact Dispatch via ACARS 'call me' function; but our phone system failed to work. The crew reportedly had an ECAM auto feed system fault. Fuel for both engines was all coming from the left tank. The flight crew had an emergency and needed our assistance; but our phone system failed them. I had to log the system off and then back on again to get it to work again. I received no visual clue or alert prior to the emergency that there were any problems until I needed to use it.In addition; I needed to send diversion information to the crew via the ACARS airport database send function; but that function is no longer there so I was unable to do so quickly. If the ACARS airport database function was moved; I was not advised and I; thus; could not find it when I needed it. This needs to be addressed immediately.




Synopsis: An air carrier Dispatcher addressed his concerns about poorly conceived and/or maintained communications links with the aircraft in his care.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B MIA
ATC / advisory: Tower MIA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on final to Runway 9 in MIA; in IFR conditions. My company requires us to be in the landing configuration by the final approach fix. Tower asked us to maintain 180 KTS to the marker; we declined and offered 160 KTS so that we could be configured; yet allow us to be stabilized by 1;000 FT. ATC not pleased. On landing rollout; with a slight tailwind; wet runway and 3/4 visibility and decelerating through 85 KTS Tower tells us to take H4 Taxiway; then H5 Taxiway. We did not answer until we were slowed to taxi speed. During this same time Tower cleared another carrier to takeoff on Runway 12 which intersects Runway 9; our landing runway. We were able to stop short of Runway 12; and then Tower canceled the takeoff clearance for the other plane. We were never given any land and hold short instructions; which we would have declined; before landing. Tower said that if we wanted to use the whole runway then we need to tell them before hand. My understanding is that the runway is mine until clearing to taxi and don't have to tell them that information. We cleared and taxied to the gate. This was a potentially dangerous situation because of Tower's noncompliance with regulations.




Synopsis: A B737-800 pilot reports being instructed to maintain 180 KTS to the FAF for Runway 9 by ATC and advising unable. Upon landing ATC instructs the crew to turn off at H4 then H5 (no longer exist) then cancels the takeoff clearance of an aircraft departing on Runway 12. The B737 crew is admonished by ATC for not advising that they will be using the whole runway.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working East Arrival vectoring to Runway 22R ILS. Air Carrier X was established on the 22R ILS; 20 [NM] northeast of ORD at 7;000 FT. Air Carrier Y was on vectors from SBN 20 [NM] ENE at 7;000 FT. Initially [they were] on a 290 heading to go behind Air Carrier X. Both aircraft were operating at 250 KTS. I had to adjust heading to 310 and then 330 to stay behind Air Carrier X. I did get Visual Separation just prior to proximity being less than three miles laterally. Divergence was also in effect as the 310/330 headings were essentially a base leg and Air Carrier Y was on course to pass behind Air Carrier X. No Conflict Alert was activated. I feel the Fusion Radar presentation threw off my estimation of the closure rate and the converging courses; and it ended up being closer than I would have liked. My perception is that the Fusion display appears to jump with regard to the target position; refer to as 'stitching'. I am still getting adjusted to correlating target movement relative to the ground speed read out; especially when vectoring to the final approach course at the speeds we are accustomed to working. I intend to build in a little more 'margin' on headings; spacing and speeds; particularly when vectoring to the final approach course.




Synopsis: C90 Controller described a loss of separation event while working aircraft to the final; the reporter claiming the Fusion Radar contributed to misapplication of separation required.