elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On LUCKI ONE RNAV arrival to the RNAV to Runway 27. On final approach approaching TRIXI at 270 knots and 13;000 feet; per the RNAV SID. Steep descent and deceleration required from TRIXI. Extended Flaps to position 1 10 knots below the limit. Possible overspeed of flaps at position 1 as speed increased back up to 235 knots with speed brakes partially extended enough to keep the hook (Vls) below the target speed. Speed may have exceeded the limit by 1 or 2 knots during the steep descent. Extended gear; continued approach and landed normally. I made an AML entry about the possible overspeed.The problem is the 270 knots required at TRIXI; and steep descent and deceleration from TRIXI at 270 knots and 13;000 (12;000-14;000) to LYNDI at 210 knots and 5;000 feet. A heavy Airbus is difficult to slow from 270 to a gear extension speed of below 250 and/or an acceptable flap extension speed of 220 knots; during a 2.5-3 degree descent. Perhaps if the speed at TRIXI could be changed to 230 knots or 220 knots; the gear or flaps could be extended earlier; and this characteristic performance issue could be avoided.Perhaps not engaging Approach Armed and allowing myself to get high by leveling off in order to slow down to extend gear and Flaps 1; then using vertical speed and manually setting altitude selector to intermediate altitudes until on the profile; then arming approach so 'final approach' mode is entered. In addition; and more appropriately; if ATC could change the speed to 220 at TRIXI; a more normal descent and declaration would be possible.


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


Synopsis: A321 crew reported that on the LUCKI1 STAR into SAN it is very difficult to make the restrictions without overspeeding the flaps.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VNY.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D VNY
ATC / advisory: Tower VNY
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was on the ILS to runway 16 Right and about 2 to 1 miles from the runway started a climbing 'Go Around' due to a strong tailwind and wind shear. As Aircraft X was midfield I gave him a right turn out and then a left turn to Runway 34 Left due to the winds. The wind was calm at the airport but Aircraft X and others had reported 20 plus knot winds out of the north.  Aircraft X landed runway 34 Left without incident. When the CIC called to SOCAL to advise them of the 'Go Around' and that we would be keeping Aircraft X in the pattern; they advised that he was not on a visual approach and needed to cancel IFR.  Aircraft X was already on base about to turn final for runway 34 Left so I said nothing to the pilot and let them land.The missed approach from VNY is not functional. It turns aircraft east into the neighboring airport (BUR) arrivals and departures.  We at VNY and SOCAL try to keep 'go around' aircraft in the pattern on the west side to avoid conflicts.  VNY should have the automatic ability in good VFR WX to keep IFR aircraft in the pattern if pilots prefer. Also; in years past; the radar data tags were much easier to quickly decipher what approach an aircraft is on. VLS was used for the ILS and VA was used for a visual in the scratch pad.




Synopsis: VNY Tower Controller reported an IFR aircraft that went around due to windshear. Tower Controller kept the aircraft in the pattern and the CIC advised TRACON. TRACON advised the aircraft had to cancel IFR. Reporter stated they ignored the TRACON issue and let the aircraft land.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft meeting the crossing restrictions on the DSNEE arrival. I have had many issues with aircraft from the north meeting the restrictions but today while conducting my 2 minute overlap in the HEMR position Aircraft X checked on from the East and the first thing the pilot said was that it was difficult to meet the restriction from RHODE (17;000-FL190) to PHIYA (at or below 13;000) which forces the pilot to descend at least 4;0000 feet in 11 miles.




Synopsis: SCT TRACON Controller reported it is difficult for aircraft to meet the PHIYA crossing restriction from RHODE on the DSNEE 1 Arrival which requires a 4000 foot descent in 11 miles.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Check Pilot; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Takeoff Roll
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff and at about 50 knots I noticed my airspeed indicator make a fast and significant speed change to about 75 knots then back down to just over 50 knots at which point I called out 'Airspeed.' I thought we might be experiencing severe windshear so I looked over at the Captain's airspeed indicator to confirm and noticed not the same indications. I then looked back at my PFD and realized I had lost my entire Air Data Computer system and announced 'I have lost everything' and then 'Reject' at which point the Captain performed the Rejected Takeoff Procedure. We rejected below 80 knots and did not activate the RTO autobrakes; contacted Tower and exited the runway. I realize our manuals state the Captain has the sole responsibility for the decision to reject a takeoff but during this event I was concerned with the slow or lack of response from the Captain after I first announced that we had an 'airspeed' problem and then a failure of the Air Data Computer system shortly following. Although I was operating as a First Office on this flight I am also a Check Airman and felt prompting the Captain to perform a Rejected Takeoff before reaching 80 knots per our SOP's was the correct and safest course of action.




Synopsis: A B747-400 First Officer commanded a rejected takeoff after 50 knots when he realized that the right air data computer had failed.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Staffing; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When I started my shift I had several maintenance issues going on. One flight was from the previous day that had broken down. I was trying to get that flight out. The Captain was going illegal. We had lost all of our payload and I had to update the strip with ATC. I noticed I had 17 flights airborne and [in one hour]. I had 10 releases to write. The stress level went way up because now stations and crews were calling for fuel slips and releases. Once the maintenance issue was resolved I waited for some flights to get on the ground. The phone kept ringing and then another maintenance issue developed. They only way to control the situation was to not release any more flights until things settled down on my desk. The workload was just too much to handle.Our workload continues to be an issue. Even on a good weather day other factors come into play. We cannot sit here and just push out releases. When interruptions happen; mistakes are made. I made a conscience decision to not release any more flights. Of course that just causes more phone calls and the cycle does not get any better. Open additional desks. We have hired over 45 Dispatchers and have not taken any pressure off the Dispatchers by opening up additional desks and distributing the workload more evenly. Everyday it's a constant heavy stream. At times I have not been able to eat dinner or step away for a bathroom break. We have an open desk in each quad of desks; open these desks up.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported they had to withhold releases from aircraft because of their workload.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Line; Fittings; & Connectors
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight I noticed fuel leaking from the top of the right nacelle. We elected to divert to the nearest airport. I notified ATC of our intentions and received a clearance and declared an emergency. ATC vectored us for the visual approach and an uneventful landing was made. Tower had the emergency equipment standing by and we taxied to a predetermined spot where the authorities declared us OK to be towed to the Maintenance hangar. Upon evaluation; Maintenance found a gasket that had separated causing the leak.




Synopsis: A King Air C90 E90 pilot noticed fuel leaking from the top of the right engine nacelle; so he declared an emergency; diverted to a nearby airport and after an uneventful landing Maintenance discovered a gasket separation was allowing the leak.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During landing practice in the local traffic pattern; on short approach to third landing and aligned with centerline of runway; I applied partial left rudder to correct slight right yaw caused by 5 mph crosswind. At the same time; the plane's airspeed began to drop and the stall warning horn came on before touchdown. When rounding out and flaring to touchdown; plane experienced a hard landing and veered to left; resulting in plane departing runway and striking taxiway sign and marker light.To avoid in future; steps I would take would be to maintain a higher airspeed on short final and consider initiating a go-around at the first sign of loss of stabilized approach.




Synopsis: C172 Student pilot reported a hard landing; causing the aircraft to depart the runway striking a taxiway sign.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Refused aircraft for mechanical condition. Had [a component of the] flight control computer failure on inbound flight. Maintenance placarded [it] rather than fix it. Flight crew procedures to comply with MEL is three pages long; requiring the flight crew to 'put the aircraft in a test configuration;' then perform 2 more pages of maintenance procedures to determine if the aircraft has 'elevator movement.' Flight crews are not trained to run maintenance procedures; and if done incorrectly the lack of an elevator causes loss of the aircraft and probably all passengers and crew. Maintenance reset the computer after I refused the aircraft for mechanical condition. Unable to source another computer at the station. Don't attempt to dispatch an aircraft with known control problems.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported refusing the aircraft during preflight because of a flight control computer failure.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Sector 10; both the R and D positions. The Supervisor said I was going to get busy and she was getting me a D- Side to help. About the same time the D-Side arrived the sector was getting busy and complex. There was aerial refueling going on and shortly after they entered my airspace they wanted to break up. This is not something that normally happens at this sector or at any other sector in our area. There was no flight plan on one of the aircraft that was refueling. We have been running on ERAM and it is still somewhat of a distraction. The D-Side had a hard time helping with this flight plan information that I needed. Finally; we treated it as a VFR pop up and put it in as a vp. While all that was going on; there were numerous departures off of MSP going West and I am not sure if they got point outs to the adjacent sector. I know I put them on the adjacent sectors scope but I am not sure if the point outs were done. There was traffic for one of the departures but I had already changed its frequency to the high altitude frequency. I know my D-Side was working on that situation. We also work with St Cloud Tower. We need to pass proposals and inbounds. I know the flight plans didn't get passed soon enough. The strip of the aircraft was stripped up but not passed timely. Also; new crossing restrictions were implemented with MSP Approach and they are something that isn't automatic yet. That was also another distraction. It was a very busy stint at Sector 10 and I did my very best to keep separation. Recommendation; I would recommend a few things for this situation: Get a D-Side sooner; give the D-Side a proper briefing; review aerial refueling break ups; get a tracker; become more familiar with ERAM so its more automatic; review MSP crossing restrictions with MSP Approach Sector 10 can get busy very quickly and it is very important to stay ahead of the traffic.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller described a possible airspace incursion with an adjacent sector when a flight of military aircraft participating in a refueling exercise requested a break-up. The reporter listed complexity; volume; and unfamiliarity as causal factors.
Date: 202102
Location: ORF.Airport, VA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Jeppesen plate ILS 5 ORF. Note 3 towards top of page states: Glideslope unusable for coupled approaches below 744 ft. In minimums section box note 1 states: RVR 18 with Flight Director or Autopilot or HUD to DA. How can I use the Autopilot to DA when I'm not allowed to use the autopilot to DA!




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported confusion while looking at the special instructions for this approach.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I boarded the aircraft. Temps were below freezing at night so I looked out of the jetway on the way in to the airplane to verify if the wing looked like it had frost and if external air was hooked up.  I couldn't see if the wing was clear and saw no de-ice fluid dripping or de-icing in progress also there was no external air connected to the aircraft (air at gate X has been broken for weeks if not months). The flight attendants were already onboard and it was cold when I boarded. Since boarding was in 15 minutes I elected to start the APU just before briefing the flight attendants.  I turned on the APU bleed and proceeded to brief then about 3 minutes into the brief; smoke started pouring out of the air conditioning system throughout the aircraft. I immediately ran forward and shutoff the bleeds and APU. I then ran to the gate (faster than trying to get iPad out in smoke for OPS freq.) and told agent to ask for fire response due to smoke.  I immediately went back [to] the aircraft and verified the flight attendants were off of the plane and continued outside to make sure the aft cargo compartment door wasn't opened until the fire trucks arrived since we had warnings for that compartment. I elected not to fire the bottles since I could smell the de-ice fluid.  As I exited the jetway I saw ground services spraying the airplane next door after having just doused my airplane (there was an unbelievable amount of fluid coming off of my plane). The fire trucks arrived after a few minutes and I explained what I believe to be going on and they verified it with an inspection of the aircraft.  The smell inside the airplane was intense so I made sure that we would not be boarding. I then called Maintenance Control; the Chief Pilot; my Dispatcher and ZZZ Station OPS to advise everyone of the situation.  After everything was verified under control; I went out to the gate and made a PA announcement to the passengers about why there were fire trucks around our airplane. I then went back and coordinated with Maintenance Control and scheduling.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fume event during preflight at gate due to a communication breakdown between flight crew and deicing ground personnel.