elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
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 Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Sector X and had given an E120 the restriction to cross ZZZZZ Intersection at 140. Sector Y called me and told me that a C172 wanted the RNAV approach to the airport and that he was my control. By the time the E120 was over ZZZZZ; Sector Y had taken the hand off and I had transferred communications of the E120. Sector Y has control for descent but since the C172 was over a nearby fix at the time I knew that they were responsible for separating the two aircraft in their sector. When I noticed the E120 [was] descending and converging with the C172; I initiated a call to Sector Y. After 3 attempts; Sector Y answered and I asked them if it was their intention to descend the E120 below the C172. I had already issued an approach clearance to the C172. The Sector Y Controller said he would turn the E120. The E120 was turned behind the C172 and I issued traffic to the C172. The closest proximity appeared to be 2.6 miles and 500 FT. I believe that the Sector Y Controller was not aware that control of the C172 was given to Sector 7 and did not know that the C172 was not flying on the flight plan route. Communication needed to be better.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event apparently a result of confused and incomplete coordination between sectors.
Date: 201905
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Dispatch; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flight XXX was a little north of ZZZ when I got called by Load Planning saying there was a piece of Hazmat that was loaded and not reflected in the weight manifest. There were two pieces of Hazmat for this flight with piece 2 was supposed to be held off. When the original weight manifest was done; both pieces were reflected to be held off when piece 1 was loaded in pit 3. The flight took off and Cargo made a call to investigate and that was when the mistake was discovered. An updated pilot notification and weight manifest change was sent to the flight crew when the flight was a little south of ZZZ.




Synopsis: Airline Dispatcher reported receiving corrected Hazmat cargo weights after aircraft departure. Updated Hazmat data was sent to aircraft.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation II S2/Bravo (C550)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B TEB
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approximately 25 minutes before the altitude deviation occurred; the aircraft suffered loss of cabin altitude from FL330. After completing all checklist and memory items the trip continues normally. Upon reaching TEB airspace the crew was still a bit overwhelmed from the events that had previously occurred. Approach gave us a heading and a descent down to 2;000 ft. The aircraft was turned to the proper heading yet the altitude did not properly capture allowing the aircraft to continue decent down to 1500 ft. before it was fought by the crew. Whilst this decent was occurring the cure was making final adjustments for the aircraft to be set up to cross DANDY intersection at 1;500 ft. and it was made apparent that the Co-Pilot's side HSI had become inoperative. When the altitude deviation was caught by the crew; immediate corrective actions were taken yet approach issued an altitude warning. Contributing factors included crew fatigue from just completing a rapid decent due to loss of cabin pressure. During the course of this action judgment was affected because the crew was still excited from the previous events that transpired.




Synopsis: First Officer reported altitude deviation following loss of cabin pressure.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Ramp EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had taxi instruction to taxi to 22R intersection W. Shortly thereafter they amended instruction for takeoff 22 R full length. That became confusing with crossing a runway; going through hotspot; etc. We lost situational awareness in the process. We were cleared for takeoff quite some time prior to getting to the runway. The Captain lined up on taxiway papa. Having already been cleared for takeoff the Captain had already advanced the thrust levers up a bit and I took aircraft control. I slowly advanced the thrust levers and before pressing TOGA (Take-Off / Go-Around) I realized we were not on a runway but a taxiway. I stopped the aircraft immediately. ATC came on as I was stopping telling us to stop. They then told us to taxi on to 22R back taxi and we were cleared for takeoff.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported the Captain lined up for take off on a taxiway and started departure roll.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Aircraft component: Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were being cleared onto the runway a company flight behind us called to advise us of a possible open panel door (possibly the external power door). We advised ATC that we would like to taxi clear of the runway and take care of the problem.The Captain called Maintenance and advised them of what was going on and asked if they would like us to return to the gate. They advised us to not return to the gate and to depart as normal; as there would be no problem even if the external power door was open. We decided to depart with no problems noted. The door was inspected at our destination and no problems noted there as well. We should have returned to the gate. We live in such a litigious society where even if it might upset passengers by having them arrive late at the destination; it's just not worth the possible problems that might arise from a panel causing damage; especially one that was known possibly to be open in the first place. As a First Officer; I will do my best to make my opinion known to the Captain no matter how miserable that might make the rest of the trip.




Synopsis: Although the reporter First Officer was opposed to doing so; the Captain of a B737-300 decided to complete their flight notwithstanding reports from other flights that there was a panel door open; possibly the external power panel door. Their Maintenance Department had advised them to do so as no damage would result.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Cessna 400
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was doing parachute operations to an airport. I asked them to give me a 2 minute warning prior to release. The airway they operate on is one of the busiest routes [in the area]. It gets inundated with both IFR and VFR traffic daily. Holiday weekends are worse. Prior to Aircraft X giving me the warning I began calling traffic about Aircraft Y; who was transiting west to east along the airway. I called traffic a total of three times. I asked Aircraft X where he would be releasing the jumpers. He said right over the airport. I asked if it was ok with Aircraft X to put Aircraft Y about a mile or so north of the airport. Aircraft X replied in the affirmative. That's where I put Aircraft Y. Aircraft Y said he had the other aircraft and the jumpers in sight and I instructed him to resume own navigation.Aircraft X then says something to the effect of 'that guy flew right under me' to which I replied 'I told you where he was going; I asked if he was ok there and you said yes.' Then out of anger and disgust I terminated his services and frequency changed him. Hindsight being 20/20 there were other things I could have done; but at the same time it is a shared responsibility. I warned him about the traffic; and he acknowledged. I would recommend looking into the Aircraft X operation at ZZZ; this isn't the first incident with this company over the years. They have routinely been a problem in the airspace surrounding the airport. We have an LOA with them that they don't comply with. We have instructed them to hold jumpers due to traffic and they refuse.




Synopsis: ZLA ARTCC Controller reported they assigned a VFR aircraft a route to avoid a Skydiver aircraft; but the Skydiver aircraft reported the VFR traffic flew underneath them.
Date: 201411
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Other Unwanted situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Observer
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: For 30 plus years many of us pilots have complained about no taxi lighting on the West Ramp of Tucson International Airport. The Runway Safety Group is familiar and aware of this issue. Nothing is done. The airports answer is the same...it is noted in the Master Plan update of 5; 10; 15; 20; 30 years. No change has been made yet. There are many private hangars; an FBO; and a Community College. There have been considerable developments on other parts of the airport. It is just a pattern of poor procrastination. In any event; Safety on the West Ramp is an unused and lost word.

Callback: The reporter advised that the area involved is the 'West Ramp' located in the northwest corner of the airport complex. It is accessible by the western extension of Taxiway A1 on which there are no taxi lights or via Taxiway B off of Runway 3/21 which has two taxiway lights. There are no taxiway lights or hard surface edge lights on the West Ramp complex itself. The complex contains multiple large to small structures including an aviation related college building; rows of T-hangars; an FBO; the historically significant original terminal and a very large narrow body aircraft maintenance facility accommodating a significant number of such jets on site; surrounded by a movable fence that is put in place at night. That fence is not lighted.There is no general illumination lighting of the area either via lamp towers or atop the various buildings. There is no edge lighting to the ramp which is surrounded by desert typical land and vegetation and only a single yellow taxi line along the outer edges; which must be illuminated by the aircraft to be seen; is available for guidance.Notwithstanding the resulting visibility limitations; night operations are routinely conducted from the West Ramp.



Synopsis: A small aircraft instructor reports that despite many years of futile advocacy from users; the TUS airport has failed to improve the West Ramp area commensurately with the rest of the airport. The user's primary complaints are lack of area illumination and surface edge/taxiway lighting appropriate to the ongoing use of the area for night time operations.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LGA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On Taxiway A we missed Taxiway Nine entrance into the ramp. Unfamiliar with new ramp and no signage off of Taxiway A were contributing factors.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a taxiway incursion due to signage issues and being unfamiliar with the new ramp at LGA.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were coming in from the west and then cleared for the visual approach 26. As to not get too close to the terrain; we built a three-mile/three degree approach for 26. On the base we were looking good on the FMC glide path to 26 and were a little more than three miles out from the runway. Next came 'Caution Terrain; Caution Terrain.' The Captain disconnected the autopilot to correct the sink rate. Next we got the 'Pull Up' warning and the Captain applied thrust; pitched up; and turned toward the airport to avoid the terrain. I believe we should have made a 2 NM/3 degree approach; configured on downwind; and stayed in closer to the airport. I also think that an RNAV approach for this runway would be a very good. Also; emergency thrust and more aggressive pitch up.


Second narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach in night VMC conditions. We had built a 3 NM; 3 degree glide slope final for the runway in the FMS. While in the modified base to final we got a 'Caution Terrain; Caution Terrain' and a 'Pull Up' aural warning. I disconnected the autopilot and I applied thrust and climbed and turned toward the runway. I did see red terrain on the terrain display; however; my memory is that there was one to two miles between us and the red terrain and that red terrain was abeam us and soon to be behind us; as I turned toward the runway. The aural caution ceased and I was still in a position to make a normal and stabilized approach to the runway. The approach and landing was normal; stabilized; and uneventful. Next time I will keep my visual approach and build my approach tighter and I will be configured on downwind.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew reported taking evasive action to EGPWS CAUTION TERRAIN and PULL UP warnings on a night visual approach to ABQ Runway 26.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C TUL
ATC / advisory: Tower TUL
Second aircraft: Beech 1900
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An E145 cleared visual approach to Runway 18L. A B1900 cleared visual approach to Runway 18R; neither aircraft was issued the 30 degree intercept at the time of the approach clearance. There was no loss of separation. We do away with the 30 degree intercept rule.




Synopsis: TUL Controller acknowledged his/her failure to utilize the required thirty degree intercept heading during side-by visual approach procedures; the reporter suggesting the elimination of the intercept requirement.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: JSD.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D JSD
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departing New Haven VFR en route to ZZZ; I unintentionally flew through the Class D airspace of a private heliport while talking with New York approach. The class D airspace was not depicted on the Jeppesen database in my cockpit. I thought I was flying around all class D airspace but was not aware of the Sikorsky heliport airspace. The event would not have occurred had the airspace data in my database included the private heliport.




Synopsis: Pilot reported unintentionally flying through the JSD Class D airspace.  Pilot stated the Class D was not noted in his navigation database.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Denver Center handed off two aircraft on collision courses at 37;000 feet (Aircraft X and Aircraft Y). We had to call them to turn Aircraft X 20 degrees right to maintain separation. The Denver Center controller called back and said the pilot couldn't turn left because of weather. Then he asked what we wanted him to do! We told him to climb Aircraft X or Aircraft Y to 38;000 feet wrong altitude of direction of flight. Luckily Aircraft X was able to climb. He ended up climbing Aircraft X inside our airspace to avoid a collision! It's unbelievable to me the Denver Center does not realize that they are handing aircraft off to us on collision courses and then when we give them advice on how to separate then they have no other plan on how to separate aircraft! Hold controllers and supervisors accountable for knowingly not separating aircraft.




Synopsis: ZMP Center Controller reported the adjacent sector handed them off two aircraft at the same altitude on converging courses.