elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BHM.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BHM
ATC / advisory: Tower BHM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Requested visual to Runway 6 and we were denied. ATC issued visual to 36 and pilot flying appropriately programmed a three-mile; three-degree glideslope to that runway. Night conditions with unlimited visibility. On approximately two-mile final; stabilized approach; we received a single 'Too Low Terrain' call out at the top of a ridge line south of the airport. The pilot flying was 100 FT high on the VPATH and terrain was in sight. As soon as we recognized the single call out all of the high terrain and threat was behind us; we continued for an uneventful landing on Runway 36. Would not recommend visual approaches to Runway 36 at night and would immediately execute the terrain avoidance maneuver per the QRH in the future.


Second narrative: Night VMC. Normal descent into BHM. Light winds out of the north ATIS was calling 6 and 36 for landing runways. We were set up perfectly for Runway 6. Asked approach for Runway 6 and was denied. ATC issued a visual to 36. We programmed in the FMC. Runway 36 with a three-mile extension and a three degree glide path. Night conditions were CAVU. On approximately two miles from touchdown; we received a single 'Too Low Terrain' call out at the top of the ridge line south of the airport. I (pilot flying) was 100 FT above our programmed VPATH and the terrain was in sight. I immediately added power to climb and by the time initial inputs were implemented; it was evident the terrain was behind us. We continued for an uneventful landing on 36.Having never landed Runway 36 before at night; a level of unfamiliarity with the terrain was evident. Otherwise; we would have programmed a steeper descent path in the FMC. Would not recommend visual approaches to Runway 36 at night and would have immediately executed the terrain avoidance maneuver IAW the QRH in the future.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experiences a terrain warning two miles south of Runway 36 at BHM during a night visual approach. Thrust is added but the warning does not repeat and the approach is continued to landing.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: [After the flight I was told that] DEN TRACON had a question about our flight into DEN. We had flown the PEEKK 3 RNAV Arrival into DEN and were told to expect Runway 16R. As Pilot Monitoring; I had loaded RNAV Y 16R into the FMC. We also had the Localizer Frequency to 16R loaded in the NAV radios.While we were inbound to CLFFF on the arrival; DEN Approach cleared us the RNAV Z 16R and to start at CLFFF. I immediately loaded the RNAV Z 16R into the FMC via the Arrival page and chose the CLFFF transition. However; the FMC would not allow me to execute the change as we were about on top of CLFFF already. (CLFFF is a waypoint on the arrival as well as an IF (Initial Fix) on the approach.) We tried to load the approach one more time but still could not get the new approach to execute. On both attempts I did page through the LEGS pages to get the proper CLFFF to load at the top of LEGS page one; but it would not execute.We could see the arc and the approach on the NAV Display and decided to turn off the autopilot and hand fly the approach since the autopilot was continuing us straight ahead on the arrival towards GREYS. The Captain flew the aircraft well and stayed on speed and on course or very close to the course the whole time. I monitored everything and did not notice any NAV Performance deviations (never saw ANP Bar Limits). We did see Company traffic on approach to 16L and made sure we were well west of them. That probably put us inside the final arc to JETSN. At no time did we feel we lost situational awareness or put the aircraft in a dangerous situation.In hindsight; after I could not get the FMC to execute the new approach; I should have let Approach know that we were 'unable' to fly the approach and requested vectors to final or a visual approach instead. I would recommend to TRACON that they issue approach clearances as early as possible in order for flight crews to load them in a FMC. We are all human and I think that two extra minutes would have made the difference in this instance.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that they deviated from clearance due to flight management system not accepting new arrival.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored for the Visual Approach we were joining the localizer for the runway when we were issued the clearance 'Air Carrier X; turn right heading 130 follow the Air Carrier Y 1-2 O'clock 3 miles; cleared for the Visual Approach 16R; maintain 170 ...' The Captain read back the instructions. While making the turn we both acknowledged the airbus was slowing and was really closer to 2.5 miles in front of us and the gap was visually closing. I verbalized to the Captain I was going to adjust the speed a bit and called for flaps 3 and slowed to 160 knots to assist in keeping the distance. Shortly thereafter we noticed the separation continue to appear to get closer so I in error slowed down even more and called for gear down and configured to land; slowing to Vapp speed.In the business of it I said again we probably should advise approach and the CA agreed. He queried ATC and told them of our speed and approach told us we needed to maintain 160 to or the aircraft behind us would have to go around. It was very clear and I understood it perfectly. All the Captain heard was go around and repeated it on the radio. I was flying with the automation off and auto-throttles off; so I pushed the throttles forward to accelerate to 160 knots again to meet ATC's requirement. The Captain read back a go-around and then wondered why I was accelerating. I had to step up and speak up to correct the big mess that was created. We continued with the approach and the rest was uneventful. The first issue was the Captains incorrect comprehension of the controller's instructions. Secondly; I think he could have verified the call for a go-around because there was no reason for it to be called especially in the manner it was said by the controller. The controller did nothing wrong; he was just speaking candidly and trying to facilitate the problem. I was flying the airplane first and complying and ignoring the distracting mess the Captain was creating on the radio. I did have to correct him and get it straightened out. This whole snafu could have been avoided by just complying with the 160 knots to begin with; but hindsight is 20/20.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported slowing to final approach speed even though ATC had assigned a speed to maintain on approach.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MIA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C FLL
ATC / advisory: TRACON MIA
Second aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: FLL Final was working Aircraft X inbound to FLL RWY 10L during a heavy arrival bank using parallel runways. I was sitting on [Sector] 1Z and observed a VFR; fast moving; 066 [MSL] descending from northwest of FXE; southeast bound rapidly into HWO. I tagged the VFR watch and back-splatted it to both the FLL Feeder and Final. The Final Controller had to evasively maneuver Aircraft X into a tighter turn to final with traffic on the parallel runway he was staggering on; just to miss this VFR. I observed the VFR proceed into HWO; and the Tower told me it was Aircraft Y who was an experimental.FLL airport is the 19th busiest airport in the USA; and one of the top 3 fastest growing; averaging 8% growth each of the last 5 years. FLL has a basic Class C airspace surrounding it that is beyond out of date and unable to aid in the safety of its aircraft on the finals. Planes inbound to each of their parallel runways are not offered any sort of protection until within 5 miles of the field; which allows several dozen VFRs each day to climb; descend; and transition across each final; without ATC advisories creating a very dangerous; unsafe; and hazardous situation in the skies above. The FLL Class C is inadequate; and out of date; and needs a major airspace change around it; whether a bigger Charlie; or a full blown Class B before it's too late.




Synopsis: Miami TRACON Controller reported an airborne conflict with a general aviation aircraft and an air carrier inbound to Fort Lauderdale.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were taken off the GEELA RNAV STAR; MOHAK transition; given numerous heading and airspeed clearances and then cleared direct GEELA and cleared to 'descend via' the arrival. We verified and executed the clearance; then selected Managed Descent.At this point we transitioned FL180 and I called for the descent Approach Checklist. Upon reaching MNSTR I noticed that we were at 13;000 although the procedure required crossing between 16;000 FT and 15;000 FT and at 250 KIAS. I advised the Captain; verified the situation; ensured we were in Managed Descent and complied with all remaining restrictions.I'm not sure what happened! I just do not know how much more I can do. ATC is always issuing new clearances and restrictions which create a lot of confusion when running checklists and managing the vertical path and ensuring compliance with restrictions. We get way too many clearance modifications from ATC on all of the arrivals; all of the time and on a regular basis.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew; as well as the Managed Descent mode of the FMGC; were flummoxed by multiple ATC directed modifications to the GEELA RNAV STAR and descended to cross MNSTR at 13;000 vice between 16;000 and 15;000 as required. The reporter expressed his dismay for the complexity of the STAR procedure; the inability of his autoflight system to comply with that complexity and especially for modifications to it given by ATC which may render the flight crew unable to comply due to excessive workload.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 100
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Smelled smoke in cockpit; determined source was inside aircraft. As situation developed; visually observed smoke as well. Engine instruments indicated nominal. No fire observed. Performed partial electrical system shut-down (radios; moving map; intercom; etc). Diverted to uncontrolled field. Once clear of Bravo airspace 30 NM ring; powered off transponder and switched master off. Ventilated cabin by opening window. Continued diagnosis effort during expedited descent; passenger used smartphone to photograph under dash. Gear retraction handle observed to be very hot. Passenger observed hydraulic hose to be very hot. Sight glass to hydraulic reservoir found to be too hot to touch. Gear selector handle found to be in 'up' position (not as expected; should have returned to neutral after gear retraction complete). Pilot flying manually moved handle to neutral. Turned master switch back on for landing; gear extension was normal and safe landing achieved at diversion airport. Did not need to manually extend gear. Source of smoke determined to be overheated hydraulic fluid and/or jacket material of hydraulic hose. Suspect intermittent failure of handle release solenoid; which prevented hydraulic pump from going into bypass mode; thus overheating the fluid.




Synopsis: Cessna 210 pilot reported diverting to an alternate airport after experiencing smoke in the cockpit related to overheating hydraulic fluid.
Date: 201209
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight at FL380; we received a 'Cabin Altitude' EICAS alert accompanied by a warning horn. We confirmed the cabin altitude was slightly above 10;000 MSL and showing an extremely slow rate of climb (less than 200 FPM). In addition the cabin differential pressure was extremely low for the altitude we were at. We then donned our O2 masks. The Captain declared an emergency with ATC and I began an emergency descent out of FL380. During the descent the Captain managed to control the Cabin rate of climb by switching from 'Auto Controller #2' to 'Manual' and later by switching to 'Auto Controller #1'. Once the Pressurization system had been switched over to another Auto Controller and was reacting normally; we decided to halt our descent at FL300. The Cabin continued to descend to the normal Cabin Altitude and differential pressure began to increase to a normal level for FL300. We decided that continued flight was possible and informed ATC that we would cancel the emergency and continue to our destination. The rest of the flight proceeded normally and we landed without incident.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: The flight crew of a B757-200 began an emergency descent when they received a cabin altitude warning at FL380. When the Captain stabilized the system by selecting an alternate pressure controller they canceled the emergency and continued to their destination at FL300.
Date: 201901
Location: VHHH.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Captain for flight from VHHH and once again; was presented with a cargo load containing lithium batteries. ONCE AGAIN; I requested additional information regarding the load and could not secure ANY information regarding what we were carrying; how it was packaged; whether it was inert; etc. THERE IS NO GUIDANCE IN OUR [manuals] REGARDING LITHIUM BATTERIES IN THE CARGO HOLD. Until there is or until I can get a satisfactory answer to my questions when presented with this cargo; I will continue to refuse carrying it on my aircraft.




Synopsis: B777 Captain reported recurring issue of not receiving required Hazmat documentation for Lithium Ion battery shipment.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cardinal 177/177RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During landing on runway 34; my aircraft was weathervaned by shifting wind conditions after touchdown and began to depart the runway to the right. I immediately initiated a go-around; but clipped a runway exit sign just as I became airborne.  I announced my go-around and requested ground observation of my undercarriage as I returned for a low pass.  Ground observers reported no visible damage; so I returned for an uneventful landing.  Upon visual inspection on the ground; I discovered a small ¼ inch puncture in the aircraft skin about midway and just below the passenger door.  It is in a non structural area.  The airport manager indicated that the sign was designed to break away on impact and it did so.




Synopsis: A C177 landed in a crosswind and weathervaned toward the runway edge. The pilot then executed a go-around but struck a runway sign causing a small skin puncture below the passenger door.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: A passenger wore a mask that looked like it had holes in it; he was irate when I told him it was not allowed onboard. He had a kid with him and to make things easier I grabbed him a mask from the galley. When I got to his seat he had another face covering but I still offered him the mask. He took it but and threw in the seat back pocket. He told his kid he didn't wanna make a fuss; it wasn't necessarily a non-compliance but it is definitely worth reporting my point of view.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger boarded the aircraft with a mask that had holes.