elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While setting up for the ILS 6 in Teterboro; we were told to go direct VINGS; expect ILS 6. As requested we complied. About 1 mile form VINGS the Controller asked us to turn to a 090 to intercept the localizer and cleared us for the approach. I put the plane in HDG mode; 090; and pressed the approach button; something we have trained ourselves to [do] numerous times when cleared for and ILS. This [FMC] has a small quirk in it that I know about; but neglected to remember in this instance. When in HDG mode; the APPR button will not arm unless the needles are in the GREEN or LOC mode. Therefore when I pressed the APPR button I neglected to notice that it did not ARM for this reason. We flew through the localizer and had to make a sharp and dramatic turn to re-intercept. No matter how much you know the equipment (and I pride myself on knowing it well) it is no substitute to being in front of the airplane and anticipating what it should and will do next. In addition; when you push a button make sure it does what you wanted it to do; [don't] just assume. This is precisely how something like this could be prevented in the future.




Synopsis: C680 pilot flew through a localizer course due to improper setup of the autoflight system and had to make a 'sharp and dramatic' turn to re-intercept.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing; Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Other / Unknown; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other go around
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Encountered windshear at 400 ft. AGL on final at ZZZ. Performed escape maneuver and began cleaning up aircraft at 1;500 ft. AGL. I was hand flying in IMC and continuous moderate turbulence while climbing at Max Thrust/TOGA power. At some point during the climbout we received EICAS message ENGINE 2 BLEED OVERPRESSURE. We were cleared to climb to 3;000 ft.; and inadvertently climbed to 3;200 ft. I noticed the error as we were passing through 3;100 ft. and began correcting immediately. ATC did not advise us of any deviation.The were many factors that lead to this deviation: severe weather; moderate turbulence; uncommon procedures; extremely light aircraft combined with MAX Thrust and updrafts; the unexpected EICAS message at a critical phase of flight; trying to turn in climb-out to avoid weather; and task saturation.Due to the known risk of windshear on this approach; we briefly reviewed the windshear escape maneuver before the approach. While we went over the initial steps; we did not specifically discuss the recovery and reconfiguration. In the future; I will make sure to review the entire procedure when there is a high risk of windshear. Additionally; I should have asked for automation sooner in the recovery. Choosing to hand-fly the level-off in these conditions was not the best choice and getting the autopilot on sooner would have prevented the deviation.




Synopsis: Captain reported that task saturation during a go around resulted in an altitude deviation.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZNY.ARTCC, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZNY
ATC / advisory: Center ZNY
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented

Narrative: In final phase of the climb to FL350 having passed the SHIPP waypoint; New York center cleared us to fly direct to the KINGG intersection. A few seconds after the aircraft had started the turn towards the intersection the New York center controller asked us if we were turning to the left; after replying affirmatively to the question he gave us an immediate turn right to a new southeasterly heading telling us again to make sure we were going direct to the KINGG intersection. We immediately realized our mistake noting that the spelling of the KINGG intersection was incorrect in the FMS. The spelling we had entered during the route planning phase was KINNG and not KINGG. The KINNG intersection is also in the New England geographical area and did not trigger a gross error in the FMS once entered. In the route verification phase the misspelled word KINNG was in the correct order on the route and did not trigger an alert in the crew because the sound of the two words is exactly the same....contributing factors were also an extremely early report for duty by both crew members and late arrival of the Captain at the aircraft; 20 minutes prior to scheduled takeoff due to heavy traffic.Suggest changing the name of either the KINGG or KINNG intersections to something completely different.


Second narrative: [Report Narrative Contained No Additional Information.]


Synopsis: C680 flight crew entered KINGG intersection instead of KINNG in the FMS route section. The names of both intersections sound the same and both are located in the New England area; approximately 200 NM apart. ATC advised the crew of the correct intersection spelling; which was then correctly entered into the FMS.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Human factors: Workload; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other after the fact
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on my second double and was filling a part for a RON [Remain Over Night] in ZZZ1. We were very busy during this time and it was only myself and the crew chief. I pulled the part and rushed the process to make sure that it would get on a flight to ZZZ1. Maintenance ordered 3 more of the same parts for ZZZ2 and our crew chief had to call them because our count was off and we could not fill that for them. I got distracted with so many stuff going on that I just overlooked the hazardous part of the process. I take full responsibility and will make sure that this will never happen again in the future.This occurred because I had a lot of stuff going on and I just overlooked this hazardous part.I will slow down what I'm doing when it comes to sending out parts from our station and double check everything.




Synopsis: Reporter overlooked the hazardous material part of the process while shipping parts; resulting in hazardous materials being shipped undocumented.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wet Runway; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The incident occurred during a training flight on the final leg of our approach to landing. My student was manipulating the controls. He is currently fine tuning his landings. We were a little high and a little fast. I told him to bring the throttle to idle to return to glide path and pitch for final speed. He complied. As we continue the descent; we were on glide path and still a little fast. As we transitioned into the flare it became obvious that we were not going to be able to touchdown and bring the airplane to a stop before the end of the runway. I was concerned that if at that point we executed a go-around that we would hit the trees on the departure end of the runway. I decided to continue with the landing with the potential to overrun the runway instead of attempting the go-around. I immediately took the flight controls from my student and forced the plane on the ground and applied maximum braking. The plane came to a stop in the mud just past the end of the runway. We exited the aircraft then removed it from the mud and inspected for damage. The plane and its occupants were uninjured.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported an unstabilized approach by the student pilot led to a runway excursion.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During the final 10 seconds of our landing maneuver; we encountered significant wake turbulence and elected to execute a go around. The go around maneuver and subsequent landing were completed in compliance with [Company] procedures without any additional abnormalities.On the initial approach; we were approximately 3.5 miles behind an Airbus 319; when he landed ahead of us. The ATIS indicated calm winds and during most of the approach that appeared to be accurate. During the approach for the subsequent landing we observed that winds were calm until we reached 100 ft AGL. Below 100 ft AGL the winds appeared to increase to 160 at 7 knots. Apparently this was just enough quartering tailwind to push any wake turbulence over the runway and up into our flight path.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence at low altitude on approach to CLT in trail of an A319.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp PHX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Airport; Aircraft
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After an uneventful approach; landing; and taxi to the gate; we approached the J-line for our gate. While verifying that the safety zone was clear; we noticed that a provisioning truck was servicing the forward galley of the aircraft at the adjacent gate. The lower tailgate of the truck was very close to the edge of the safety zone but we determined that it was outside the line and continued. I taxied very slowly because the box of the truck looked close from my angle of sight. We did not receive any signal to stop and parked without incident. However; the wing walker came up to the cockpit to talk to us afterwards and mentioned that he noticed me looking at the wingtip; and he had the same concerns I did. He stated that the wingtip and the truck box seemed very close; approximately one foot in his estimation. He also was wondering if I could see his wand because; at that point; he and the Marshaler had no line of sight with each other due to the jetbridge. My concern is that if I am looking at the Marshaler and he cannot see the left Wing Walker in this situation; then we are essentially blind. Even though nothing happened; I feel like I should have stopped and waited for the truck to move. The Wing Walker and the rest of the Ground Crew did an excellent job getting us parked without incident but that seems like a situation with a high potential for a negative outcome. Although a negative outcome was avoided; it may be beneficial to have a note in the SIP to let Crews know that the Marshaler and Wing Walker cannot see each other at a certain point in the parking process. I don't know if this is a common issue at every gate; but I always thought they could see each other the entire time.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported the wing walker told them they missed contacting a parked truck at an adjacent gate by one foot while taxiing in.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting a training flight with a student. We were established on right downwind for Runway 20. We had already completed three touch-and-go landings and were continuing for a fourth. My student (in the left seat) suddenly observed an aircraft flying in front of us; from left to right. The aircraft then made a left turn to enter downwind in front of us. I made a call on CTAF stating that we were on downwind; now number two for landing. There was no response from the aircraft ahead of us until I called him on CTAF directly. He verbally acknowledged my transmission; apologized; and then stated that he would 'make a 180' on downwind so that we could proceed as we had planned. The pilot also stated on CTAF that he had been making radio calls prior to entering the traffic pattern. My student and I never heard any radio transmissions from this aircraft. When he completed his turn; he was headed directly toward us. I took control of our aircraft and made a left descending turn to avoid the other aircraft. When we turned; the pilot of the other aircraft also made a left turn; which was toward the runway. This aircraft then proceeded along the downwind leg; in the opposite direction to current traffic. There was another Cessna 172 established on right downwind behind us. The disruptive aircraft announced on CTAF a few seconds later that he was 'now number three' for landing. My student and I continued and made a full stop landing. The disruptive aircraft also made a full-stop landing behind the Cessna 172 which was between us in the traffic pattern.




Synopsis: C152 instructor pilot reports a conflict in the traffic pattern Aircraft Y enters on the downwind without announcing on the CTAF.  When Aircraft Y is finally contacted the pilot elects to make a 180 degree turn to reenter and a NMAC occurs.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Potomac Approach give us instructions as we crossed Cavalier fix to proceed directly to Mosby fix (IF) for ILS Runway 1R; and maintain 4;000 ft. Seven miles from the fix we were instructed to [descend to] 3;000 ft. to cross Mosby and cleared for the ILS approach.As we crossed MOSBY at 3;000 ft. I armed approach and allowed autopilot [to] continue approach. As [we] were getting closer to the next fix [Waxin at 1;900 ft. with] GS captured I noticed autopilot [was] not holding 1;900 ft. and continued to descend. I disconnected the autopilot and hand flew the aircraft to the proper attitude on the glidepath. At the same time Tower notified us they are getting low alert altitude warning. We acknowledged the correction and indicated we were on the glidepath and proceeded with our approach to complete the landing.The lesson I learned from this [is] always be prepared to take the airplane from automation and fly the airplane.




Synopsis: Hawker 800XP Captain reported that an autopilot malfunction during approach resulted in an altitude deviation.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Ground 2 which is the North Ground position at LAX. A Super was exiting 24L and contacted me for instructions. I told him to taxi straight ahead on AA and hold short of Charlie. I specifically told him to do that because of prior events and occasions in which foreign and non foreign carriers stop after exiting 24L when told to taxi via the 'Bridge route'. Instead of me telling Aircraft X to taxi via the bridge route; I specifically told him to taxi via AA and hold short of Charlie. He read it back and I told him to contact Ground 120.35. After looking up again; I noticed that he not only stopped; but he appeared as if he was attempting to turn left onto Echo which was contrary to my instructions. Meanwhile; Local 2 had an aircraft on or near the runway from what I can recall and could have cleared him for takeoff using anticipated separation as they watched Aircraft X continue to move. This has been an ongoing problem with pilot's expectation bias of turning left onto Echo when told to do something else. After I used a louder voice to reclear Aircraft X on AA; he started to move and complied. I would recommend a notice going out to all carriers with a special attention given to the carriers which fly the Super to LAX about pilot expectation bias and the safety concerns regarding that. Pilots should comply with instructions given unless an emergency exists; or at the very least they should ask questions and ask for assistance if and when applicable. Because pilots think it is quicker to turn on Echo to get to their gate; they presume that the Ground Controller will give that instruction. When they don't; the pilots slow down and often times stop to question the clearance.




Synopsis: Reporter states problem with Super Aircraft not following instruction. Reporter has to use louder voice to convey instructions.