elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Challenger 350
Operator: Fractional
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
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: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We received our clearance PDC; and it included flying the WLKKR3 RNAV departure from Runway 16R at VNY (Climb via SID except maintain 4;000 feet). The Captain and I reviewed the departure chart and it shows on the plan view that we are to cross the VNY D1.5 'At or below 1;750 feet;' and then to 'Climb to 1;303 feet.'This is; at best; confusing. The narrative is slightly better; except that the narrative doesn't include the detail about 'at or below 1;750 feet.' NOTE ALSO THAT THE 'AT OR BELOW 1;750 feet' RESTRICTION WAS NOT IN THE FMS. And neither the plan nor the narrative makes it clear when you are to climb above 1;303 feet.We contacted Clearance Delivery by radio to ask what it was that we were expected to do. We were told that the 'at or below 1;750 feet' was a limitation; but the 1;303 feet was there to prevent airplanes from running into terrain. So we were to comply with the 'at or below 1;750' at 1.5 DME; and then climb to 4;000 feet'.Change the chart to clarify that the 'Climb to 1;303 feet' only pertains to the minimum altitude before making the turn to PPRRY (which isn't much of a turn at all); rather than appearing to be a limitation on how high you can fly. Also; the presence of the shaded circle adds to the confusion; because its purpose isn't apparent. If the shaded circle were not there; it might have been more apparent that the 1.5 DME from VNY VOR was essentially at the departure end of Runway 16R.




Synopsis: CL-350 pilot reports confusion regarding the initial climb segment on the RNAV SID chart and climb restriction was not in aircraft database.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Beechcraft / Beech Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A Beech Bonanza departed RAL on an IFR flight plan. Routing is the ONTN10 routing to SNA. The issue exists when an aircraft puts the route in the box it skips the PDZ 270 radial. I believe this is a known issue and we should stop using clearances that contain radial to airway routes because the box can't get it right. The box [FMS/GPS] omits the part of the route that contains the radial. In this case the clearance should have been PDZ270R..V363.POXKU.V8.SLI; but the box omits the radial and V363 and sends the aircraft PDZ..POXKU.V8.SLI.[I believe we should] stop using clearances that contain radial to airway transitions until this can be fixed.

Callback: The reporter advised the ONTN10 is a 'canned' Tower Enroute Control routing that pilots; when thus cleared; may select from their nav database and enter into their GPS/FMS. He has had a number of these events occur in recent years and; as a result; had engaged in communication with this pilot to try to find out why they happen.  In those communications he was advised that the system in use in this case 'populated' the route exactly as it was being flown; having eliminated the large right turn after PDZ followed some 13NM later by a left ~115 degree turn to intercept V363 before proceeding to POXKU.  The result is a much more efficient route from the standpoint of mileage but contrary to the canned route.The reporter advised the 'inefficient' course changes were required due to interference with approaches to other aiports and the MEA on V8-21 between PDZ and SLI.The reporter further advised he had suggested; about two years ago a waypoint; be inserted at the nominal intersection of the PDZ270R and V363 to alter the 'bearing to intercept' leg to become a 'fix to fix' leg which might prove more readily accomodated by FMS/GPS navigation systems.



Synopsis: An SCT TRACON Controller reported a small Beechcraft airplane departing RAL via a standardized 'Tower Enroute Control (TEC)' route; ONTN10 to SNA failed to follow a segment consisting of a radial out of PDZ to intercept V363; instead proceeding via V21-8 to SLI; this event only the last of a number of similar occurrences.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GTF.Airport, MT
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D GTF
ATC / advisory: TRACON GTF
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound to GTF from the south. We were in CENRAP; and I had the appropriate CENRAP map selected. I descended Aircraft X to 6000 ft in an 8500 ft MVA (that is 6000 ft in normal operations). This occurred approximately 19 miles from the airport. 12 miles from the airport; the aircraft reported the field in sight; and I cleared them for the Visual Approach. I do not know the altitude the aircraft was at when I cleared them; but a minute or two later; the local controller noticed Aircraft X indicated 7000 ft on their Mode C; which could not be validated due to CENRAP. It was then I realized I had issued the descent to 6000 ft in the 8500 ft MVA.Improved radar to maintain standard operations at all times. Also; MVA's that do not contradict one another based on CENRAP or standard operations.




Synopsis: GTF TRACON Controller describes where he descended an aircraft below the MVA while working under CENRAP conditions. Under normal radar conditions he would have been alright with the altitude descent.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BGR.Airport, ME
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BGR
ATC / advisory: TRACON BGR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were on the RNAV approach to Runway 33 in BGR. Level at 3;000 feet; we were cleared direct to ELSUH and cleared for the approach. We passed ELSUH at 3;000 feet and I began a slow descent to 2;300 feet for CUVOT; the final approach fix. As I passed through about 2;400 feet we received the 'TERRAIN TERRAIN PULL UP' aural warning with a red GND PROX annunciation on the PFD. I initiated the GPWS escape maneuver; and almost immediately the warnings extinguished. I eased the aircraft nose down; and we were at about 2;900 feet by the time we were fully level. At this point; we were about 4 miles from the FAF; and only about 600 feet above the minimum altitude at the FAF; so I elected to continue the approach. The remainder of the flight was uneventful.Although we were established on the final approach course and above the minimum altitude for that segment; I'm assuming the warning was triggered based on our rate of closure with the 1;251 feet hill depicted on the chart. This approach is notorious for triggering the GPWS even when the approach is being followed appropriately. Executed GPWS escape maneuver; returned to normal flight.This is just a poorly designed approach. It is not reasonable for an instrument approach procedure to trigger EGPWS as frequently as it does. The problem could be solved by moving ELSUH in about 4 miles- this would put ELSUH 4 miles outside of CUVOT; leaving plenty of room for aircraft to descend from 3;000 feet to 2;300 feet and preventing aircraft from descending until the 1;251 feet hill is passed. I would be genuinely interested in passing this suggestion along to the FAA; if an appropriate channel exists.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a terrain issue associated with the RNAV Runway 33 Approach into Bangor; Maine.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SEQU.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower SEQU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On left base to join localizer on ILS 36 approach; experienced green laser event at our 12 o'clock position. It was intermittent and lasted approximately 30 seconds. Experienced partial visual impairment that lasted until after landing.  Inadvertently turned on taxiway J instead of H due to poor signage lighting and effects from laser on vision.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports being zapped by a green laser at 8;000 feet while on vectors to the ILS 36 at SEQU. After landing; a turn off on to the wrong taxiway is initiated due to poor signage lighting and effects from the laser on vision.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ADW
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC; TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared by ATC to descend RAVNN6 from cruise altitude FL390. Landing Runway was 10 and FMC was programmed accordingly. No handoff was given by Washington Center to either low control or Potomac Approach. Both FO and myself were monitoring Guard 121.5. Neither one of us noted a lost communications call for any aircraft during our descent. As we approached the final altitude of 6000 feet; at RAVNN; I asked ATC if they would like us to contact Approach. ATC responded that he did not know who we were; or our position. I told him we were on the RAVNN6 going to BWI and he gave us frequency to Approach. Made brief contact with ATC and switched to final Controller. Final Controller cleared us to descend to 4000 ft and left us on our routing for Runway 10. Shortly after ANCRR intersection; a green laser light was observed from our 10 o'clock position. I assumed the aircraft was being targeted by an unauthorized laser. ATC asked if we had observed any flashing lights off our left side. I responded we did; realizing they were for the restricted airspace over Washington DC. We remained on the RAVNN6 transition for RWY 10 until we were vectored off the arrival for visual approach. After landing Ground Control requested our tail number. No explanation was given.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B737 crew descending into BWI reported not receiving a handoff from ZDC to PCT TRACON. They queried ATC on the handoff and were switched over to PCT where soon after they noticed ground based laser activity directed at them realizing it was due to the restricted airspace over Washington DC. ATC also asked them of the laser activity soon after and requested their tail number upon landing with no further explanation.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Climbing to FL80 with a Transition Level of FL60. Altimeter was 1002 Hectopascals (Hpa). Pilot flying reset altimeter to 1013 passing approximately 7;000. Aircraft was already in Alt Cap at high rate of climb. The significant change from 1002 to 1013 Hpa caused the aircraft to overshoot the assigned level by approximately 200 feet. The deviation was immediately noticed and corrected but ATC had already queried the deviation as there was crossing traffic at FL90.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B767 Captain was hand flying and reset his altimeter after ALT CAP so the aircraft leveled off 200 feet high while on the old altimeter setting.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was doing OJT on Local South position. I was the instructor. A helicopter called 2 miles south at 1;500 FT wanting to land at a nearby hospital which is 2 miles north. The helicopter was flying at 160 KTS. The trainee instructed the helicopter to go northbound 1 mile west at or below 500 FT; which is the helicopter preferred routing per our LOA. The helicopter said they were unable and asked to go over the top of the airport at 1;000 FT. So the trainee said unable over the top of the airport continue northbound from present position and remain south of the final for traffic. The helicopter said they could not hold that they were on a lifeguard mission and they need to go direct to the hospital. So I keyed up and instructed the helicopter to go northbound from their present position and suggested a heading of 360 degrees at or below 1;000 FT and that I would put them through the final. The trainee issued traffic calls to the helicopter and a B190 that was on about a 5 mile final for Runway 9R. The helicopter had traffic in sight and was passing behind. In the meantime; an aircraft was in position on Runway 9R to depart VFR to the northeast. I instructed the trainee to clear the aircraft for take off. The trainee proceeded to issue traffic to the helicopter on the aircraft that was on final for Runway 9L. The helicopter stated that they had traffic in sight and would pass behind. The final traffic was at 1;200 FT and the helicopter was at 900 FT. I had both an A320 and the helicopter in sight. I informed the Tower Cab that the helicopter was passing behind the landing traffic. The landing traffic informed the Tower that he was responding to an RA; but was still able to land. I was later informed that the landing aircraft was going to file this incident as a NMAC. Recommendation; all helicopters; regardless of type of flight lifeguard or not; follow airport procedures.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a TCAS RA and filed NMAC involving landing Air Carrier traffic and an EMS helicopter passing behind to land at a near by hospital; the reporter indicated the helicopter had the landing traffic in sight.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: ILS Precision Runway Monitoring (PRM) APPR we experienced Windshear Warning. Executed a Go-Around at 2;000 feet while climbing out and waiting for the Windshear Warning to stop we notified ATC. ATC issued 3;000 feet we were now in a major updraft and passing through 4;000 feet. We finally were able to start the descent at 5;500 feet ATC was asking why we started our descent so late. We informed them of the severity of the shear and that we had our hands full and that we experienced a major updraft during the go around. We also experience a momentary bank angle warning due to the turbulence.Tower asked us to call them for more details of the event. Several other aircraft were going around as well and were asked to call the tower as well.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A crew experienced severe windshear on final approach.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cancelled IFR was on visual to Airport ZZZ left base for RWY XY; saw a 172 on final; and performed a go-around. Did a nonstandard right turn and flew outbound. Checked radio frequency and dialed in [Local CTAF]. Turned back to final and saw a Mooney. Turned back around to the right and flew outbound. I was on the radio but heard no one.  I got a call and told me to switch to [Local CTAF]. Apparently I had not pressed the button on the KX155 hard enough. I dialed [Local CTAF] in and landed.  During the second go-around I forgot to put the landing gear down. When I realized the wheels didn't touch; I powered up and heard the props vibrate. I rose to 5 or 6 feet and lowered the gear. Landing long on runway 32. I taxied to the ramp and shut down.  The last 3 or 4 inches of the blades were curled.




Synopsis: BE55 pilot reported nearly landing with gear up and damaging the props in the process. He pulled up a few feet; extended the gear; and landed long.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Aircraft
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While taxiing the aircraft I had multiple training aircraft on both sides with minimal clearance and [another aircraft] ahead on my right side. Because of the planes being on both sides and the [other aircraft] on the right; I was navigating between the planes and attempting to judge distances of clearance. While looking to the right side to ensure clearance of the [other aircraft]; my left wing struck the rudder of a small plane that was in a blind spot of visibility. [The cause was a] loss of situation awareness and blind spot. [I suggest having] wing walkers/linemen assistance in safely guiding [a] plane out of [an] overly crowded area.




Synopsis: BE-90 Captain reported a ground encounter with a parked aircraft while maneuvering a crowded parking area without wing walker assistance.