elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202101
Location: PAMR.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other Any
Flight phase: Descent; Initial Climb; Cruise
Airspace: Class D ANC; Class G ZAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11; Tower MRI
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Manuals; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: My aircraft does not have ADSB. If I depart Merrill to the north and do not receive the Part 93 deviation from ATC; then because of the combination of Part 93 and the ADSB requirement over Anchorage Class C; I am required to fly over Cook Inlet below 600 ft. MSL; which puts the aircraft in a position out of gliding distance to land. Recent local memory has multiple examples of this situation ending in a fatality. There is a large number of general aviation aircraft operating in the Anchorage area that are ADSB negative and that fatal outcome is likely to occur again in the future due to the airspace rule combinations currently in place.




Synopsis: General Aviation pilot who operates in the Anchorage Alaska terminal area reports complying with local Special Federal Air Regulations places aircraft in a position that they are unable to safely reach an airport to land in the case of an engine out landing.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BNA.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BNA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Taxi out for departure in BNA. Visibility less than 1200 RVR. Ground Control not using charted low visibility taxi routes and charted flow. Ground Control had us depart out of ramp area at spot 4 instead of charted spot 1; causing extensive taxi in very low visibility [in] uncontrolled area of ramp; then proceeding onto a non-low vis taxi way. Numerous aircraft and lost GA aircraft. [This procedure] caused a very dangerous situation. No ground radar in Tower; [they] should keep everyone on charted low visibility (SMIG) taxi routes. Ground Control created a very dangerous condition that did not have to happen.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported BNA Ground was not using charted low visibility taxi routes while visibility was less than 1200 RVR.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ELP.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON ELP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; 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: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was an IFR overflight. I was the OJTI and my Developmental took the handoff on the aircraft. As the aircraft crossed the boundary; I realized he was leaving an 085 MVA into an 080 MVA. We were already talking to the aircraft when he was in the 085 MVA and the aircraft was level at 080. This is my fault for not catching it sooner. This was never an [issue] in the past. Recently ZAB has been allowing overflights to enter our airspace level at 080. The lowest IFR altitude for ELP should be at least 090 due to all the terrain we have. The rumor mill told me it's in the process of being put into our LOA with ZAB that the lowest usable altitude for ELP is 090. This can take months to get through all the approvals it needs.




Synopsis: ELP Tracon Controller reported a developmental controller took handoff on aircraft at an altitude below the MVA.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While starting #2 engine during push back; the flight deck crew heard an unusual; but unidentified; noise. At approximately 23% N2; the First Officer observed N2 RPM stopped increasing and began to decrease. At about the same time; the tug driver reported sparks and smoke coming from the #2 engine. The stop attempt was terminated (fuel had not been introduced) and the aircraft was returned to the gate and subsequently taken out of service.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported an unknown noise and lack of power while starting the number two engine.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Established on the final approach course for the VOR approach; 8 mile DME from the airport (3 miles from the final approach fix); the published altitude is 2400 ft MSL. The student I was teaching was flying the aircraft. I initiated a simulated; partial-panel situation by placing a card over the G1000 display; simulating an AHRS/ADC failure. The student proceeded to turn the aircraft and descend simultaneously. After correcting a minor course deviation; I looked down at my standby altimeter. I saw the needle on the number 2 (believing we were at 2200 ft MSL; 200 ft below the published altitude for that portion of the approach.) I soon realized we were at 1200 ft MSL. I assumed control of the aircraft and initiated a climb. The Tower called my tail number and issued a Low Altitude Alert. I informed the controller we were aware of the error and were in the process of correcting it. I am a recently certified Instrument Flight Instructor; with very little experience as an Instrument Flight Instructor. We were in a high stress portion of the flight; and I neglected to pay attention to altitude along with the course deviation I was trying to correct. This was a learning experience as an instructor; and as a pilot.




Synopsis: A C172 flight instructor reported that the pilot being given instrument instruction had descended well below the published altitude on a VOR approach.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working R3/7 combined on the mid shift when Aircraft X departed HNL without prior coordination from HNL tower. This aircraft was assigned FL330. Aircraft Y departed KOA after receiving a clearance from Honolulu Center with an assigned altitude of FL330. Both of these aircraft were cleared via the same initial routing of APACK R463 AUNTI. Aircraft X routing then diverged at AUNTI via A332 HELOP ... to CYVR. Aircraft Y routing continued on R463 to ALCOA to KSFO. The time between these 2 aircraft was 12 minutes with the faster aircraft (Aircraft X M079) in front of the slower aircraft (Aircraft Y M078). This situation has happened 100's of times over the years with no problems. However; in this instance; the ZOA controller refused to accept Aircraft Y at FL330 'Because these aircraft are crossing and we need 15 minutes'. This is not a true statement. These aircraft were on same and constantly diverging routes where 10 minutes is the minimum separation standard. ZOA wouldn't accept this aircraft unless it was issued an IADOF altitude of FL320. To make this situation worse was the fact that moderate turbulence was being reported below FL330.This is absolutely unacceptable for a controller to not know what the separation standard is between 2 IFR aircraft they have separation responsibility for. If the equipment (ATOPS) that ZOA uses doesn't recognize what separation needs to be applied the controller needs to have the ability to override this. HCF needs to have ATOPS installed to ensure a smoother transition from RADAR separation to OCEANIC Non-radar separation since ZOA doesn't have the ability to override what the ATOPS is erroneously telling the controller.




Synopsis: HCF Controller describes a situation where ZOA Oceanic wouldn't accept an aircraft at an altitude because the ZOA controller thought they needed 15 minutes of separation. They only need 10 minutes of separation according to the HCF Controller.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the descent into DEN we were cleared to descend via the JAGGR 3 Arrival. The Captain was the Pilot Flying and briefed the arrival followed by the ILS to Runway 16L. At approximately point DANDD on the arrival; Denver Approach cleared us to cross QWIKE at 11;000 FT and to expect the RNAV (RNP) 17R. The Captain went heads down and reprogrammed the box and verbally stated that we would use the QWIKE transition. The approach was briefed appropriately. Shortly thereafter we were cleared the approach. At point STAAM on the approach; the Captain stated that the aircraft wasn't descending to the next altitude. We both looked at the MCP; ND and PFD to verify all appropriate modes. After passing point STAAM it became evident that our aircraft was not following the RF. The Captain quickly took the autopilot off and made a left turn to follow the RF. I went heads down and saw that there was a discontinuity in the FMC where the arrival ended and the approach began. I tried to remedy the problem by closing the discontinuity; but at the same time DEN Approach called informing us we were 1 NM north of the course. They offered the Visual Approach to 17R and we accepted. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. Any changes in the FMC or control modes needs to be confirmed by both pilots prior to execution. This is a negative trend amongst most pilots.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported track and altitude deviations occurred on the JAGGR3 Arrival into DEN.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: From start to finish of flight including taxi out; ATC complained of a stuck MIC. It took us three to four frequency changes for us to realize that it was our aircraft. We investigated the possibility of it being us with stuck MIC every time a Controller said something about it and received successful radio checks each time. We ended up figuring out it was the FO's yoke switch and ended up disconnecting all his MICs and going to alternate mode on the FO's side and still had reports of hot MIC on our previous frequency that we had in radio number two; while we used radio number one. We advised ATC of our issue and landed uneventfully. When debriefing with Maintenance Control and his investigation into malfunction; it appears that a new yoke MIC switch (FO's side) was installed incorrectly the night prior; which led to a hot MIC connection without any activation of the switch. Basically the aircraft MIC was hardwired hot from the time power was applied to it. While we trouble shot it every time; ATC issued a warning we did not think it was us until we realized the issue was following us through our frequencies. Chief Pilot was contacted and debriefed accordingly; we also advised Maintenance and Dispatch to report the issue. [Recommend] Re-evaluate Maintenance Control's evaluation procedures as related to communication equipment repair and operation's check. ATC in all phases of flight putting out that someone had a stuck MIC.




Synopsis: Pilot reports that from start to finish of flight including taxi out; ATC complained of a stuck MIC. A new MIC switch was installed incorrectly on the First Officer's yoke the night prior; which led to a hot MIC connection without any activation of the switch on their B737 aircraft.
Date: 202202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
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 was flying and another aircraft was coming my direction in close proximity. I made an evasive maneuver to avoid contact.




Synopsis: Pilot reported taking evasive action during an NMAC with another aircraft.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TFFF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Saab 340 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON TFFF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passing the final approach fix on the VOR approach to Runway 10 at TFFF we started our descent to minimums with an altitude restriction of 1;090 MSL before minimums. Before reaching the intermediate altitude the Controller advised us to exit the runway after landing via [Taxiway] A after which I reached for the airport diagram which I had on my left over my flight bag. When I looked back at my altimeter I was very surprised to see that we were reaching approach minimums already. I reacted by taking positive control of the aircraft; announcing my controls and disengaging the autopilot to get back when the Controller advised us that he got a terrain [low altitude] alert. I responded that we were at minimums and the Controller said 'Roger'. We never had a GPWS alert and this whole approach is conducted over the water. It was a clear night and I had the runway and the surroundings in sight from 12 miles out. We continued and made an uneventful landing and taxied to the ramp; my brand new First Officer; for whom I was conducting Initial Operating Experience; was not familiar with this airport and was the pilot flying.What I learned from this is to be very alert at all times and never take my eyes of what's going on and I strongly assure you that this will never happen again.




Synopsis: A Check Airman providing initial operating experience to a new First Officer was distracted by a runway exit clearance provided by the Tower and; while he researched the airport page the First Officer descended excessively triggering a low altitude alert from ATC.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: In route back to home airport ZZZ in Aircraft X. Landed at ZZZ1 to let a line of storms pass then filed IFR to ZZZ. Opened IFR in air about 5 miles west of ZZZ1. I requested GPS into ZZZ with possible future request of a contact Approach as another line of storms was moving into approach area of runway 5. Weather was scattered to broken 700 AGL at ZZZ with layer approximately 3;000 MSL. Multiple cells moving through today. I was cleared direct ZZZZZ to begin the GPS 5 approach into ZZZ. Controller never approved my contact Approach request. While on a 240 heading in route to ZZZZZ I began to get in severe turbulence due to nearness of approaching storm and I turned right to a heading of approximately 360 which would intercept the FAF ZZZZZ1 vs. flying full route into worsening weather without telling [ZZZ TRACON] why. I again requested a contact Approach or vectors to final and did not receive either. I do not remember how exactly the rest of communication went with [ZZZ TRACON]. I was able to cancel approach from the air and land at ZZZ. I should have immediately told [ZZZ TRACON] I was deviating due to severe turbulence vs just requesting vectors to final or a contact approach.




Synopsis: SR22 pilot reported deviation for weather and severe turbulence without ATC approval.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Rotor
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other During Maintenance
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: During the build-up of the Aft Flex coupling on the Main Rotor Drive System (MRDS); there was some question on what the correct orientation of the beveled washer. Reference Aerospatiale AS350 Eurocopter Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 63-11-00; Paragraph 4-2. The Maintenance note states: 'NOTE: The face of the washers that makes a curve must point to the flexible coupling'. The curved face of the washer is easily mistaken for the flat side. Previous revisions of the AMM showed a very clear illustration that helped avoid this confusion. It would help if it was reinstated to the newer manuals.




Synopsis: A Maintenance Supervisor reports their new Aerospatiale/Eurocopter AS350 Aircraft Maintenance Manuals (AMM) do not have a clear Maintenance illustration reference to help determine the correct orientation of a beveled washer during build-up of the Aft Flex coupling; compared to the old manuals for the Main Rotor Drive System (MRDS).