elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I own FL240 and up. I had a D-Side. I had been sitting on position approaching 2 hours. The rides were crappy; continuous light turbulence all altitudes; VFR with layers. I had taken the handoff on a Gulfstream climbing to FL270 with a speed of 290 plus. When he checked in; I told him leveling at FL270; resume normal speed. I took the handoff on an Airbus climbing to FL270; 290 KTS. When he checked in; I continued his climb to FL310 and told him not to exceed 270 KTS until through FL280. There was a slight overtake but I thought with the decrease in speed and the Airbus' climb that it wouldn't be an issue. I went on working the rest of my traffic. Came back around on my scan; noticed the overtake was getting worse. Turned the Airbus and stopped off the GA at FL260. Once the Airbus cleared the altitude I put him back on course. After everything was resolved I went back to the GA and questioned his speed. He said he slowed for the turbulence; I tried to diplomatically explain that next time he shall give ATC a heads up before he does that; as I was spacing; and separating based on the speed he was assigned. No error resulted.I am not sure how to impress on the pilots how important it is to comply with speed assignments and if unable to let us know so we can adjust from where I am sitting. I do not want to file a report on the pilot either; I think calling him out on the frequency was good enough. But they should know; we can absolutely adjust to what we know exists. If I had been busier with sequencing and volume; I am not sure I would have caught the drop-off in his speed.




Synopsis: Controller issued speed control assignments to two aircraft; the lead aircraft slowed due to turbulence but did not advise ATC. Controller observed the speed difference and corrected the potential conflict.
Date: 202002
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Audit
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: I was informed that I installed the wrong transceiver on an Airbus 319 two and a half months ago. I had to go back into history to find the sign off and still do not remember the incident. I looked at the IPC 34-42-33-06; 34-42-33-07 and 34-42-33-08; 3 different parts that can be installed on this aircraft and I had the filter on to filter out other aircraft. Today; the IPC is still confusing with 3 different choices. One would think with the filter on you would get only one choice. Whoever is in charge of updating manuals is failing the mechanic. I try to do the best job daily; but it is an uphill battle with manuals. After 2 years; we just got an Airbus IPC revised! 2 years! The engineer saw the problem and it still took that long to correct. It is a constant battle to get manuals revised. I take full responsibility if I did install the wrong part; but it would be a lot easier if looking at IPC's was not a guessing game.




Synopsis: A319 Technician reported that during an audit; it was discovered that he had installed an incorrect part on an aircraft; which took two and a half months to discover.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LOT.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E LOT
ATC / advisory: CTAF LOT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was traveling to LOT I had cancelled IFR and started reporting positions. ATC advised me that numerous targets were in the vicinity of the airport. I reported 9 miles out; 5 out; downwind; base and base turning final. On final an aircraft turned in front of me base to final. I slowed down as much as possible to allow the airplane to land.As I continued on final; I could see that the spacing was not going to allow for me to land because of the airplane which was in front of me. I executed a go-around and announced same. I paralleled the runway to the right. I looked down and could see the airplane was also executing a go-around. I did not hear them announce.I established radio contact with the airplane and continued on in the pattern and landed. I was later told by an employee of the FBO that another airplane had landed on the runway in front of my traffic aircraft but rolled out the full length of the runway and did not turn off; which may have caused the airplane to go around. This airport is extremely hazardous during VFR conditions because of the large number of student pilots using the field and the mix of corporate and training aircraft. At time of my landing at the airport there were at least 10 to 12 aircraft either in the pattern or approaching from all directions. This airport needs a tower. Only a matter of time before a midair.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot executed a go-around while entering the traffic pattern.  An uncontrolled field with heavy traffic.
Date: 201905
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Working flights ZZZ to ZZZ1 and ZZZ to ZZZ2; Convective activity West and NW and N of ZZZ approximately 30-50 NM had ATC in ZZZ issuing CDR RRTES. ATC advised departures over ZZZZZ were closed due to weather. The only returns at all were slight W and N of ZZZZZ. Worst activity was North and West of ZZZ. ATC issued the ZZZ to ZZZ1 flight a CDR 1N which put them into the weather. I called our ATC coordinator to discuss why ZZZZZ was shut off and why RRTE to the North. Advised that is what ZZZ sometimes does when limited single stream. Understanding volume issues may occur; the fact is the RRTES were into a more hazardous condition. Both flights were fuel tanker flights and had enough to deviate as needed; however; more care on my part to refuse that kind of CDR [Coded Departure route]. Also; why is ATC issuing CDR's into the worst of the weather without consultation from the users as to impact and best options.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported getting Coded Departure Routes from ATC that would take aircraft into worse weather than originally planned.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Coming into DEN; four different Controllers in rapid succession gave us four different arrivals and runways. The First Officer (FO); who was very 'box' oriented; started programming and I verified. With layer after layer of changes; however; we wound up with so much garbage; that we couldn't get it to do what we needed it to do. The arrival was right but we couldn't change the runway. We'd been given descend via the arrival but then it changed and so did the runway.  In the meantime; we're flying along at FL300 expecting VNAV to start us down but with the route all messed up it didn't. Center had to give us a 360 to get down to cross QUAIL at 17;000 feet. We eventually had to manually start deleting lines in the FMS to clear up things. I actually read the arrival to the FO and he verified it but we didn't see the highlighted waypoints pages down past the runway. He noticed it still said 'MOD' Route on top and was trying to figure out how to fix all that too when they gave a heading to FQF.  So after all that work and confusion; four arrival changes and runways; they threw it all out and gave us direct FQF!  Even after the vector; the FO kept trying to fix the box and I had to tell him to quit messing with it as we're doing an ILS in IMC to 4 OVC. There are times that all this stuff just makes things more difficult than just flying the airplane!




Synopsis: A B737-700 Captain reports clearance for four different arrivals to DEN in rapid succession by four different controllers; along with runway changes. The First Officer attempts to reprogram the FMC but becomes confused. ATC eventually issues a clearance direct to FQF.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HOU.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground HOU
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were in the last part of a large departure push. I was working the Tower Local Control position. I had 4 aircraft ready to depart. Three were at one runway and one was at an intersecting runway. I was departing a business jet from an intersecting runway. As the taxiing Aircraft X turned north; I lined Aircraft Y up on the runway. With my plan firmly in my head; I would depart Aircraft Y then I would allow Aircraft X to cross the runway 4 at a taxiway. When the ground controller coordinated the crossing; I had my plan made and did not realize the crossing was before Aircraft Y. I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff. The aircraft rotated and was airborne before the taxiway. The ASDE-X alerted. I saw Aircraft X approaching the runway; but in my mind the aircraft would hold short of the runway.All the memory aids were in use. Maybe additional training on expectation bias would help.


Second narrative: Taxing to the active runway we were cleared to cross the runway at a taxiway on two separate occasions within 30 seconds. We both looked at the approach end of the runway and confirmed an aircraft in position as Ground Control had indicated. My First Officer confirmed with me that he was not moving. I also looked and agreed that he was not moving. I now concentrated on steering the aircraft on the taxi line while crossing the runway. My First Officer then stated Aircraft Y was indeed rolling down the runway. I applied brakes; but was not able to stop before entering the runway. Aircraft Y rotated and over flew us. We immediately queried Ground and they confirmed for a 3rd time that we were cleared to cross the runway.


Synopsis: HOU Tower Controller and flight crew reported the Controller cleared them to cross a runway at the same time a departure was beginning its takeoff roll.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: PA-31 Navajo/Chieftan/Mojave/T1040
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While taxing the airplane; the left rudder and brake locked up and would not turn the airplane. At this time we brought the power on both engines to idle but the aircraft was still continuing to move. When we used the brakes on the aircraft the only brake that worked was the right and it pulled the aircraft into the grass off of the taxiway since the right brake was the only one that had engaged. No damage was done to the aircraft or taxiway and we proceeded to advise the Tower that our brake seized up and that we will need our company to tow the plane from where it was. They advised an aircraft to go around us and had room to do so; then we towed the plane back to our hangar for inspection and maintenance. I was advised that it was a fouling of a piston that was not allowing pressure to build up in the left brake which caused the brake to not work after the incident.




Synopsis: PA-31 Captain reported brake malfunction while taxiing.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The captain was the pilot flying and was climbing to FL340 when we received a DIFF PRESS master warning message. I looked at the cabin pressure data and the delta P read 8.6; but the cabin alt and rate were all normal indications. As a precaution we donned our crew O2 masks and the captain transferred the controls and the radios to myself; and he proceeded to run the QRH. I initiated a descent to 10000 coordinated with ATC and did not exceed 400 FPM in the descent because the cabin pressure was all normal. The captain completed the QRH and the message went away within 1 minute of starting the descent. We stopped our descent at FL250 with the QRH complete and all indications normal. A note in the QRH advised that when climbing above 30;000 feet at a VS of greater than 1500 FPM a master caution DIFF PRESS could occur. The company was advised and we continued to destination and climbed back to FL310.


Second narrative: In the CRJ-900 as we were about to level off at FL340 we received a DIFF PRESS master warning message. Cabin pressure was ok; but we put on the masks; and ran the QRH while simultaneously initiating a precautionary descent to 10;000. The message extinguished as we began our descent; which did not exceed 400 FPM; and the QRH stated to reduce vertical speed below 1500 FPM above 30;000 which had basically done. We stopped our descent at FL250; and made contact with dispatch. We climbed back to FL310 and proceeded without incident to our destination. Our vertical speed in the climb was greater than 1500 FPM above 30;000 in the CRJ-900 according to the note in the QRH.


Synopsis: CRJ900 flight crew receives a DIFF PRESS master warning message climbing to FL340. A descent is initiated before a note in the QRH is red indicating that a climb rate greater than 1500 FPM above 30;000 feet may cause the maximum differential pressure to be exceeded. With the differential pressure back to normal the flight is continued to destination at FL310.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach; Initial Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute received Mid 1 Main Deck Loop A OFF annunciator light on the STAR entering downwind. Captain performed the QRH procedures. I was flying until final approach. On downwind we also got multiple fault lights; PACK 2 FAULT; ISOLATION VALVE FAULT; OVERHEAT FAULT; HOT AIR FAULT. The mid cargo duct temp rose from 160 to over 186+ degrees. On downwind and the close proximity to our destination; we asked for priority handling to get on the deck ASAP. On final we noticed the mid cargo duct temp rising rapidly from 160 to 186+. Not knowing exactly what was going on in the cargo bay and with multiple faults; excessive duct temps and a loop failure; we declared an emergency. Captain took controls and landed uneventfully. The fire trucks followed us to off duty runway and recorded some excessive heat readings on their equipment. They cleared us to taxi to the ramp and thoroughly examined the aircraft after shut down.


Second narrative: We performed QRH procedure Main deck Cargo Loop Fault. Selected LOOP A OFF and performed Loop Test. We did not observe a Smoke light and as per checklist.


Synopsis: An A300 ECAM alerted MID 1 MAIN DECK LOOP A OFF during approach so the loop was turned OFF and tested. No smoke was detected but the mid cargo temperature was rising with numerous fault lights: PACK 2; ISOLATION VALVE; OVERHEAT; HOT AIR. An emergency was declared before landing.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: KOA.Airport, HI
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Crew was descending on the transition from UPP VOR crossing UPP at 8;000 feet to cross GEYEN at 5;600 feet. The conflicting traffic was initially issued a parallel course to ours as the controller mistakenly believed that the destination was the same as ours. When the pilot informed the controller that he had us in sight and his destination was actually different; the controller cleared him to proceed on course. Unfortunately; his course and descent took him right over GEYEN at our altitude and resulted in a descending RA for us below the published altitude. The conflicting aircraft made no attempt to change course or stop his descent and the controller made no attempt to instruct the other pilot to alter either his course or descent. There was zero lateral separation and approximately 400 feet vertical separation during the maneuver.I spoke with the Supervisor by phone approximately 25 minutes after the encounter and he had not viewed the replay. He did; however; say that he would be filing paperwork. Lack of controller oversight. Other pilot flew right into the conflict.




Synopsis: Airbus Captain descending into KOA reported a near miss with a small transport aircraft after ATC cleared that aircraft on course to its destination which crossed the same waypoint.