elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Starting at approximately XA00z I began operating in the yellow due to an excessive number of flights assigned to my desk and began to follow the Threat and Error Management protocols per the Dispatcher Procedures Manual. At approximately XA30z I had a flight given its third reroute that projected it to be just over reserve fuel. At that point I became task saturated and stopped issuing releases in order to maintain operational control. I sent [help] message and the Chief Dispatcher was able to remove four flights from my desk. Although four additional dispatchers were called in for overtime; no flights were removed from my desk until the Chief stepped in to assist. I had multiple enroute and terminal challenges that were exacerbated by a high workload. I was unable to leave my desk for a physiological break until XD00z. I know this is anecdotal; but on the overwhelming majority of the PM shifts I work; I remain in the yellow from the time I sit down until XD00 or XE00z. Six to seven hours non-stop with zero down time to catch up. In my opinion this company is very close to; and on some days violates 14 CFR 121.395 which states: 'Each certificate holder conducting domestic or flag operations shall provide enough qualified aircraft dispatchers at each dispatch center to ensure proper operational control of each flight.' The number of flights assigned to each desk is excessive when there are thunderstorms or any other terminal or en route constraints. At the current levels; we need at least eight additional dispatchers per AM and PM shift to ensure proper operational control of each flight.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported a continual shortage of dispatching staff and possible violation of FAR 14 CFR 121.395.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MKK.Airport, HI
Aircraft: Caravan Undifferentiated
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D MKK
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
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
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound to MKK on a VOR A approach. I terminated RADAR and switched him to MKK Tower frequency. A few minutes later; MKK called and said aircraft X was on a missed approach. Aircraft X called and told me he was in a climbing right turn on the missed approach. The missed approach for the VOR A approach is a climbing left turn. The right turn took the aircraft into a 7;000 FT MVA. The pilot was requesting vectors for a Visual Approach to Runway 5. I had him IDENT to get RADAR identification. The pilot reported the field in sight. I cleared him for a visual when he was at 2;800 FT MSL. At the same time; there was an ACR Y flight overflying MKK; going to JHM at 7;000 FT. I had handed off ACR Y to Sector 4 and given them control once ACR Y was south and east of MKK airport. This was because I was protecting for a missed approach to the Northwest. My D-Side pointed out aircraft X to Sector 4. There was no loss of separation. The pilot should be following the missed approach procedure.




Synopsis: HCF Controller described a below MVA event when traffic issued a VOR A approach into MKK executed an incorrect turn on a Missed Approach Procedure.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the descent into ZZZ; a very strong smell of cooked chicken could be smelled in both the passenger cabin and the cockpit. We donned our oxygen masks. I transferred control of the aircraft over to the FO [First Officer]. [Notified ATC]. Performed QRH procedure. FO performed a visual approach (backed up by the RNAV 31). We taxied to the gate. Met with the ZZZ Fire Chief. Met with mechanics. Filed fumes report on iPad. Contacted Dispatch also. Made appropriate AML [Aircraft Maintenance Log] entry.




Synopsis: EMB-190 Captain reported strong smell of cooked chicken in cockpit and cabin during arrival descent.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon arrival to aircraft; flight crew noticed a strong musty odor. Captain advised Maintenance.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported noticing a strong musty odor upon arrival at the aircraft. Maintenance was notified.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RSW.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RSW
ATC / advisory: Tower RSW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Missed approach due to loss of its signal at 600 feet. Poor ILS SIGNAL.This airport has a history of these failures. Our jumpseater; a local; briefed me that it might happen and a jet had the same thing happen just minutes after.


Second narrative: We were vectored onto the ILS 6 in KRSW; cleared for the approach and released to CTAF; since the airport was non-towered at that time. The approach was flown by the captain; coupled with the autopilot. Nothing unusual was noticed until about 600 feet AGL; when the autopilot went into degraded mode for the glideslope. The pilot flying disconnected the autopilot within a few seconds but at that point we were almost one dot high on the glideslope so we conducted a go-around. We flew the published procedure and were vectored back to final for another approach. On the approach the autopilot went into degraded mode again and the pilot flying was able to disconnect the autopilot and remain within the stable criteria of the glideslope. The remainder of the approach and landing were uneventful.Since the fluctuation happened at the same geographical location twice; we concluded the faulty system was the glideslope. Another air carrier who came in half an hour later had to go-around twice before they could land. A comment from a jumpseater was; that this is what usually happens and a mechanic told us the same. We forwarded the information to KRSW Tower who said they would investigate. The next day we flew the same approach in VMC conditions and encountered the same behavior.Since it appears to be an equipment malfunction on the ground; the prevention lies in maintenance of the ILS facility.


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew flying the RSW Runway 6 ILS executed a missed approach IMC after the ILS signal was lost at 600 feet with no apparent ATC alert. The aircraft following also lost the signal.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GJT.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 75
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D GJT
ATC / advisory: Tower GJT
Second aircraft: Military Transport
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was approaching Runway 29 at GJT for a full stop landing. A military transport was ahead of me doing touch and go's.  The Tower advised caution wake turbulence. The military transport was off the runway turning crosswind. I was about 8-10' AGL when the airplane made a rapid un-commanded yaw to the left and the right wing dropped.  The airplane hit the dirt between Runway 29 and taxiway A; then bounced on the nose and came to rest on taxiway A on the main gear and nose.




Synopsis: Carbon Cub pilot reported a ground strike occurred following a wake turbulence encounter with a military transport just before landing at GJT.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Due to a runway and some taxiway closures we were instructed to back-taxi on the takeoff runway and execute a 180 and call tower when ready to takeoff. Looking at the Jeppesen airport (10-9) page it was not clear where to make the 180 turn. The Captain made the turn close to the approach end of [the] Runway and we began the takeoff roll. During the takeoff roll (somewhere near 80kts) we received an aural warning: 'Short Runway'. The actual runway length of [the] Runway is [shorter]. We knew that it was a shorter than normal runway; and that we had lost some runway due to the 180 maneuver. We elected not to reject the takeoff. The long runway was closed. Additional taxiway closures forced us to back-taxi into position. When we looked at the 10-9 page it was unclear that there was an area prior to the [Runway] threshold that we could have used to make the 180 turn and thus use all the available runway. This taxi circle was visible on the moving map portion of the application; but only if you were fully zoomed in. Even then; the red '[Runway]' icon was over the top of this taxi circle obstructing it from view. Also; there was some language barrier as the ground and tower controllers were not easy to understand. I had to ask them to repeat the taxi instructions more slowly so they could be understood better.  [Suggest] first; fix the 10-9 Jeppesen page. It should be very clear where taxi lines are painted; especially if you have to do a maneuver that you seldom do. Tower or ground could have told us that there was an area prior to the threshold that we could have used to turn around more efficiently. We as a crew could have stopped what we were doing and asked more questions of ourselves and ground/tower controllers. Notes could be added to our company airport reference pages to point out this issue. ATIS could be more plain language than just taxi/runway closures; e.g.; 'Plan to back-taxi and execute a 180 turn prior to the runway threshold.' Crews could be trained better on the 180 maneuver (more frequently). Aerial or satellite photos of the area to be used to execute the 180 could be provided to crews.




Synopsis: A Widebody Transport First Officer reported that during a back-taxi on the takeoff runway it was not clear where to make the 180 turn.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Ground Control and Clearance Delivery combined with training in progress on the Local position. FAA Mobile Vehicle ABC called Ground Control and requested to drive near the threshold of Runway XXR. I misunderstood the transmission. I thought he was requesting Runway XXL. I coordinated with Local when able drive Runway XXL from the approach end and hold short of Runway YY. Local had a VFR Cessna inbound to Runway XXL; but local changed them to Runway XXR; so I could use the threshold area for Runway XXL. After getting approval from Local Control; I told Mobile ABC to drive Runway XXL hold short of Runway YY. Mobile ABC responded that he wanted Runway XXR not Runway XXL. I instructed Mobile ABC to hold short of Runway XXR because the Cessna was not inbound to that runway. After these transmissions; Mobile ADC called me requesting to proceed to the Runway 36 glide slope area on the other side of the airfield. I had some confusion with Mobile ABC; and a talked to him more than usual. I immediately responded to Mobile ADC's request; but I said Mobile ABC drive as requested hold short of Runways XXR; XXL; and YY. Mobile ABC and ADC both started moving. Mobile ABC went up to the threshold of XXR but not on the runway; and the Cessna was on final to that runway. Mobile ADC proceeded to the Runway 36 glide slope at the same time. The Cessna was instructed to go around because Mobile ABC was near the threshold of the runway. There was no runway incursion; but the Cessna was sent around just in case. I should be more alert with similar sounding vehicles and what requests are being made. Although I made some mistakes in this situation; having FAA mobile vehicle callsigns not be so similar would help save some confusion. Mobile ADC and ABC sound very alike.




Synopsis: Ground Controller described a go-around event when two vehicles with similar call signs were requesting access to runways. The reporter noted more care should have been exercised by all involved.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 2
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Inverter
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff to do some practice approaches with my son/student; at about 1;000 FT AGL the alternator indicated a failure and was showing a discharge. We notified ATC and received vectors for the ILS. We turned off all electrical equipment except Number 1 Com. Radio; Number 1 Nav radio; and transponder until on 3 mile final. We attempted to reset the alternator to no avail. Although we did not declare an emergency per se; we did ask for prompt handling and advised ATC that we would fly a 270 heading until reaching VFR conditions in the event of total NAV and COMM failure. ATC vectored us to final and asked if we needed any further emergency equipment. We refused. The approach commenced normally and we landed safely. In the flare just prior to touchdown; the alternator started indicating normally again. After landing and taxi in we did a little trouble shooting and found that the alternator would fail between 2;000 and 2;300 RPM on the ground during static run-up. We notified the flying clubs Safety Officer as well as the club's primary mechanic. We hangared the airplane; left signage in the airplane warning of the issue; and wrote up a maintenance squawk per club policy. All ATC facilities did an excellent job in handling our situation.




Synopsis: C172 pilot experiences an alternator failure shortly after takeoff in IMC and notifies ATC. Vectors are provided for an ILS approach and a safe landing ensues. On the ground it is discovered that the alternator faults between 2;000 and 2;300 RPM and is normal at other RPM's.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was coming out of the hold and Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were the last two I was clearing back to KORD. Aircraft Y was already direct FIYER (West-southwest bound) and the remainder of the WYNDE5 arrival and had vacated 130.  Aircraft X was on a 090 heading at 140.  When Aircraft Y vacated 130 under a descent clearance (not crossing or discretionary) I assigned Aircraft X 130.  Even though both aircraft had similar performance characteristics; Aircraft Y descended very slowly while Aircraft X descended at a higher rate.  When Aircraft X; now level at 130; came within 5 miles of Aircraft Y; Aircraft Y was still at 122 and descending. Jets have a large performance envelope and can climb/descend at anywhere from 500 to several thousand feet per minute.  When stepping down one aircraft on top of another one; I should have paid attention to the rate as derived from the MODE C or just have waited until the lower aircraft had vacated the next lower altitude before descending the aircraft that was on top.  That would have ensured 1000 feet of separation.




Synopsis: A ZAU Controller used the vacated altitude rule and had a loss of separation due to the descent rate of one of the aircraft being different than the other.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Medium Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Nassau Approach was busy. There is currently limited radar coverage in this area due to radar equipment not working. I was the R61-R44 controller. We were having difficulty getting the Nassau controllers to accept inbounds and they were slow in accepting handoffs. Aircraft X was over HANKX level at 13000 feet. The handoff was made and the aircraft communication transferred to Nassau frequency 125.3. The aircraft was landing Nassau.Aircraft Y reported on my frequency level 12000 feet joining G437. Aircraft X was on top of Aircraft Y and I called traffic and told Aircraft Y to maintain 12000 feet. The Assist was on the landline with Nassau and advising them to not descend Aircraft X until the aircraft passed. Aircraft X was observed descending and Aircraft Y reported a RA advisory and said they were responding to a RA. Aircraft Y climbed. After the two aircraft were no longer a factor I Climbed Aircraft Y to 23000 feet and cleared them direct Elbow.The Nassau Approach Radar has not been working for a while. Aircraft generally depart MYNN and we observe the aircraft on the radar leaving 8000 feet in their climb to 10000 feet.Because of the limited radar service in the area we are unable to see how busy the Nassau controllers are. The lack of radar has increased the complexity of their sectors.




Synopsis: A Center controller reported that the non-radar Approach Control facility descended an aircraft that the Center controller had restricted 1000 feet below it.