elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAT.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X was being vectored for the ILS Runway 13R approach at SAT airport. Aircraft X was 10 NW of SAT on a modified downwind given a pilot's discretion to 3;000 feet. At this point I saw a target depart 5C1 airport climbing low-level southbound initially away from Aircraft X. The unknown target aircraft then made a turn to the northeast heading about 050 degrees climbing out of 2;800 feet converging with Aircraft X who was approximately descending out of 4;000 feet heading 260 degrees. As soon as I noticed something had to be done to avoid the conflict someone else called and delayed my transmission. I then based Aircraft X a little early heading 220 to parallel the target to pass off Aircraft X right. Maybe 3 seconds later Aircraft X said he was turning to a 200 heading to further avoid the target so I told him to turn even further left heading 180 to ensure separation. The last control instruction resolved the conflict.This is a systemic problem with aircraft departing 5C1. This airport is located directly on the approach course to SAT to our most used runway. This airport is also on the base turn which makes it even worse. SAT controllers have gone to 5C1 to educate the pilots about climbing off 5C1 into the downwind/base turn without talking to Approach Control but nothing has changed. This situation happens every day. SAT has had countless RA'S (Resolution Alerts) due to this. This airport is often used by gliders that are most of the time not talking to us nor have a working transponder. It's a matter of time before a crash happens.To fix this problem the Class C at SAT needs to extend further out to cover 5C1.




Synopsis: SAT TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict between an IFR and VFR aircraft along with a possible related airspace problem.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: When setting up for visual backed up by the ILS XX into ZZZ we couldn't get the LOC/GS identified and decided to break off and back up our visual using the RNAV XX. Once set up we came back around and upon crossing ZZZZZ I mistakenly set 2600 ft. instead of the DDA; I didn't realize ZZZZZ was the final approach fix and continued to 'dive and drive' with a 1500fpm descent rate; at 2600 ft. we received a low altitude alert from ATC and realized my mistake and that I was 20 ft. below the required altitude of 2620 ft. at ZZZZZ1. I immediately initiated a go around where we came back in uneventfully. Did not set DDA at FAF and initiated a descent well beyond the proper 700fpm descent rate resulting in getting low.


Second narrative: Upon vectors for the ILS we noticed no blue/ghost needles. We selected the nav source to the ILS frequency; still no ghost needles. I recalled the NOTAM for the ILS being out but it was only for XA00-XG00 local. We inquired with approach they said it was working. We elected to be pulled off the approach and set up for the RNAV. When coming in for the RNAV we thought we were brought out much further beyond the FAF. We began to descend with 2600 ft. set the next fix was 2620. We got an altitude alert and elected to go around at 2600 ft. as soon as we knew we were low by 20 ft. We [had] both mistaken the FAF. we realized we were beyond the FAF after the go around. We then came back and did the ILS by turning the course knob and listening to the nav frequency to identify it. Being rushed on a short flight and being rushed to set up for an RNAV during a line check had us misidentify the FAF for the RNAV approach.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported a CFTT event when they set up the approach using the wrong Final Approach Fix and descended below a required crossing altitude. ATC alerted the crew who conducted a go around to a landing.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Phase of flight was the descent to SAT on the BRAUN 2 RNAV Arrival. Initial check-in with approach was uneventful. ATIS stated 13R in use. The brief and plan was for the RNAV (RNP) Z 13R from CRISS. I was Pilot Monitoring (PM) and requested the approach upon check-in with SAT Approach. I retrieved the [new] ATIS via ACARS. The runway in use was now 31L. The Pilot Flying (PF) began loading the approach in the FMS and changing approach plates. I revised the approach request for the RNAV (RNP) Z Runway 31L from TROOP. SAT Approach cleared us for the approach to cross TROOP at or above 6000 ft. I read back the clearance. I do not recall exactly the readback if I included the restriction. The PF asked if we were cleared the approach; I stated 'yes.' The PF was verbalizing something about the vertical path. The PF put 5000 ft. in the altitude window initially and then 2200 ft. when cleared for the approach. The waypoint altitude in the FMS shows TROOP as an at or below altitude. The ATC clearance was for at or above. ATC restated the restriction when we descended below 6000 ft. prior to TROOP. A climb was initiated back to 6000 ft. to cross TROOP. The remaining part of the approach and flight were uneventful. TROOP is an IF on both the RNP Z 13R and on RNP Z 31L; but the altitude requirements are different. On the 13R Approach; TROOP is at or above 6000 ft. On the 31L approach; TROOP is at or below 6000 ft. Since the airport had just switched runways; I suspect that the controller was expecting us to cross TROOP at or above 6000 ft. yet once he cleared us for the 31R Approach without any altitude instructions; we continued our VNAV descent below 6000 ft. I suspect he was surprised to see our aircraft below 6000 ft. prior to TROOP.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported an altitude excursion occurred on the BRAUN2 RNAV Arrival into SAT when TRACON issued a late runway change.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BRO.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D BRO
ATC / advisory: TRACON HRL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Descent through 15;000 flight crew knew that RWY 31 would be in use. This is the first time arriving to BRO in RWY 31 configuration. Restricted airspace (Mexico) is nearby. Crew briefed many strategies to mitigate the airspace issue and expected visual approach. We briefed specifically where and when we will configure and to what extent we will configure when. Aircraft descending through 7;000. We expected the visual approach. They expected us to fly the LOC B/C approach to 31. Of course we cannot do B/C approaches so there was a bit of a scramble to determine an acceptable approach. Aircrew and ATC decided on the VOR only Alpha approach circle to 31. Direct clearance was given to CHICO - of note; not an IAF. Final approach altitude inbound was 900 until after the FAF then it dropped down to 540.Aircraft was not fully configured prior to CHICO which is neither an IAF nor FAF and aircraft not fully configured 100 prior to the final approach altitude of 900 (which we cannot fly). The 1;000 ft gear horn went off and we configured 7nm from the field at that time. We continued the approach - in hind sight we should have discontinued the approach and either re-fly the approach no lower than 1;022 AGL or flown the ILS 13 circle 31.[Contributing factors]1) First real circling approach ever2) Recall of the lowest allowable altitude on circling approach did not happen 3) The location of CHICO and the final approach altitude of 900 (which we cannot fly) require a significant change to the configuration game plan. Configuration was emphatically addressed in the brief but the new VOR-A approach and just finding the CHICO intersection in the FMS (it's in the ARC initial) made connecting the dots difficult.Well- there was a beautiful LOC B/C approach in use at the time which [another aircraft] was using right behind us. We decided to not allow shooting B/C approaches. The published altitude minimums on nearly every portion of the VOR-A we cannot fly - I have discussed all of this with our flight ops supervisor and have been debriefed (counseled) with him. He agrees this was a very difficult position to be in with 1;600 ft overcast CIG.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported company restrictions to approaches at BRO airport offer no options when weather is present.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: CV 580
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain called for gear down; upon moving the lever only 2 of the 3 landing gear lights illuminated. We proceeded to execute a fly by to have the tower visually verify all 3 landing gear were down. It appeared that only one of the two main landing gear were down. We then went northeast of the field to troubleshoot the issue and complete the QRH checklists. We successfully managed to get the remaining gear down and executed a second flyby. Landed without incident.




Synopsis: Convair 580 First Officer reported only one of the main landing gear dropped when selected down. The crew was able to successfully troubleshoot the problem and make an uneventful landing.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
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: While performing ground reference maneuvers with a student we had a close call with a crop-duster. Not sure the make/model of the aircraft. The student was looking for reference points to perform maneuvers while I looking for traffic. We had already performed a clearing turn. I looked up and a crop-duster was flying from right to left overtop of us close enough to make me jump and push forward on the yoke to ensure we avoided him.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a near-mid-air-collision with a crop duster while performing ground reference maneuvers.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GYY.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF GYY
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On the ground I briefed for the arrival at GYY planning to land Runway 12. Displaced threshold and landing distance was discussed. Runway 12 was anticipated due to light winds favoring that runway. I had not landed on 12 for several months. On base; for a brief moment I thought I picked out the end of Runway 12; but immediately realized I had spotted the newly constructed end of the future extension of Runway 12. The extension stands out distinctly from the surroundings because it is new white concrete. The new extension is not connected to the original runway and is still blocked off by an active high railroad embankment between the new extension and the useable current runway. We noted the distinct nature of the new construction and how the normal runway blended into the background as usual. My concern is that under high workload or reduced visibility operations a pilot may mistake the new construction for the end of the useable runway with disastrous consequences. The airport authority should issue a Notam about the new construction and the new construction should be marked with an X such as used to indicate closed runways.




Synopsis: Captain reports the Runway 12 extension at GYY; which is under construction and not connected to the old runway; can be mistaken for the active runway. The new and old segments are still separated by a high railroad berm.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X FL330 first on frequency assigned present heading for EWR spacing. +/- 060 heading. Aircraft Y FL350 next on frequency direct SLT still in adjacent sector 59 airspace. Aircraft Z FL320 request FL360 CYYZ departure southbound. When spacing was achieved for Aircraft X; I cleared Aircraft Y direct SLT by mistake. Thinking separation will be maintained Aircraft Z was cleared to FL340. Aircraft X did not turn. Aircraft Z was given two turns eventually a 270 heading to maintain separation from Aircraft Y. During this event I descended Aircraft Y to FL320 and assigned a 120 heading to proceed direct SLT to maintain separation from Aircraft Z intended for Aircraft X. Aircraft Y left FL350 and turned in adjacent airspace. When the error was noticed Aircraft Y left Sector 59 (FL330-unlimited) and entered 57 airspace (FL240-FL320). Aircraft Y was climbed to FL330 and turned back on course. Sector volume was 10-12 aircraft. Identify similar sounding call signs sooner.




Synopsis: ZOB Center Controller reported problems associated with similar call signs.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FLY.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E FLY
ATC / advisory: CTAF FLY
Second aircraft: Bonanza 35
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on a 45 degree entry for landing on Runway 15 at FLY. I announced my position on CTAF south and east of the airport at 5 NM and then again as I entered the 45 degree entry to a left downwind for landing. A bonanza reported on CTAF that he was departing runway 15 and then announced turning eastbound. I took evasive action to quickly descend 200 - 300 feet as we were head on. The bonanza was climbing and passed directly over me and we missed by no more than 100 ft. I attempted to contact the bonanza after the near miss on CTAF but he did not respond. FLY is very near to COS Class C airspace; a notch is cutout so that aircraft arriving and departing do not have to contact Springs Approach. Most aircraft departing the FLY traffic pattern do contact Springs Approach for flight following; pick up clearances; etc. I suspect what happened was the Bonanza switched frequencies immediately upon departure and contacted Springs Approach for a clearance. In doing so he was not on CTAF when I made my announcement of a 45 degree entry to downwind.FLY can be very busy and I believe aircraft arriving or departing; not remaining in the pattern; should be required to contact Springs Approach. Basically put the Class C floor over FLY and install a procedure to resolve potential conflicts.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot entering the traffic pattern for Runway 15 at FLY experiences a NMAC with a Bonanza departing Runway 15 and turning east. A head on situation develops with the PA28 pilot diving under the Bonanza to avoid collision.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was working an approach sector. I had a BE40 inbound on vectors to final. I had delay vectored him to get two slow Cessna aircraft in to the airport. At that time I also had a military aircraft inbound with minimum fuel that wouldn't take a speed reduction and also stated he couldn't take a very long downwind for fuel. I vectored the BE40 through final and then to a crosswind heading to delay for the military aircraft. Another aircraft was behind the BE40 that was kept inbound to follow the military aircraft. I went to coordinate the minimum fuel and no delay with Tower and realized that the BE40 hadn't been turned back to downwind and was about to enter a higher 9;600 ft. MVA while being at 9;000 ft. I hung up with Tower and instructed the BE40 to turn left to a heading of 300 and climb immediately to 9;600 ft. He entered the MVA block at 9;100 ft. climbing to 9;600 ft within 1 mile of the MVA boundary. I would recommend looking over my traffic next time before coordinating with Tower to make sure everything was separated to not be distracted while in communication with them.




Synopsis: Approach Controller reported vectoring an aircraft off the final approach course for sequencing placing it below the MVA.
Date: 201403
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B787-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Dispatch
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Another Dispatcher asked for my assistance on how to work up and send an update request to the crew for CI500 for a flight to NRT. [We] sent an email to our lone FPSA/Senior Manager but no answer. As we don't expect him to be available to us 24/7; this can be a safety issue not having SME's to assist the 4 Sabre desks operating 24 hours a day. We were able to get an answer from a SME from [a different facility]. It is alarming that the company considers this situation safe. Let us not wait for time critical safety issues to happen and we cannot get an expert to assist us.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher questions how to work up and send an update report to the crew for a CI500 [Cost Index] and where to get help after hours.