elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While cruising at FL360; [we had the] Number 1 FMGC failed. Approximately 15 minutes later; the Number 2 FMGC failed while we were running through the QRH in accordance with Maintenance's directions. Number 1 FMGC failed to reset after performing the Circuit Breaker reset procedures and it made the no FMGC condition worst while following the QRH. Number 2 was still having NAV engaged and Number 2 autopilot still engaged. We advised Maintenance and elected not to continue with the reset till we are closer to our destination airport for fear of losing Number 2 System completely with no Auto Flight capabilities. (We did reset Number 2 FMGC as we were less than a 100 NM from our filed destination in accordance with the QRH and Number 2 failed to reset also.) [We] notified ATC of Unable RVSM as well as Unable RNAV. [We] descended to FL280 per ATC instructions. [We] reverted to Standby NAV remainder of the flight. [We] advised Dispatch of our problems. Uneventful approach and landing Runway 25L.




Synopsis: Both FMGCs on an A320 failed in flight and would not completely reset so the flight descended out of RVSM and continued to their destination in Standby NAV.
Date: 201603
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I am filling this as a follow-on to my previous report which described how unusable the new B737 iPad tray is because it interferes with my ability to manipulate the airplane's flight controls and to access the oxygen mask. Today; while reflecting on my previous report; I took the opportunity to re-read FOM Pilot Bulletin XXX. Page two of this bulletin prohibits; in bold type; pilots from removing the tray from the window sill. Because the new iPad tray is such a bad design; I have been removing it on each flight since it was issued (if it wasn't already removed) so that I could revert to paper charts. I now believe I have inadvertently violated the FOM on each of these flights. Additionally; I have anecdotal evidence that this is a system-wide issue; because on many of my flights; F/O's previous to me have been removing this tray from the window sill as well.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported a problem with the iPad mounting tray interfering with their ability to manipulate the flight controls.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SMO.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D SMO
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Second aircraft: Light Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training on local with my trainer closely monitoring me when Aircraft X calls. 'Aircraft X just over the Marina to the south requesting north shoreline transition to the 10 FWY East/Getty.' This is where the miscommunication occurred I heard 'To the Getty; east.' I responded 'Aircraft X transition approved; cross midfield at or above 900ft.' Aircraft Y calls in on the VOR/GPS-A approach; was cleared for the visual and cleared to land on RWY 21.At this time Aircraft X crosses mid field and proceeds to cross my final along the 10 FWY east; with Aircraft Y on a 2.5 mile final. This was observed and action was immediately taken to de-conflict the traffic. 'Aircraft X you are crossing my final; remain north of my final.' At this point my trainer chimes in to ensure the situation would remain safe. Aircraft X turn left immediately; you're flying up my final.' I key up and say 'Aircraft Y traffic ahead and to your right; a helicopter turning northbound for you.' Aircraft Y replies; 'We got an RA on that guy we have him in sight; we're going to have to go around.'Possibly establish VFR helicopter routes that prohibit helicopters from transitioning in an unsafe manner through the Class Delta. For example: Aircraft transitioning out of the LAX shoreline route must continue low level along the shore until reaching the Pier.




Synopsis: SMO Developmental Tower Controller reported of issuing instructions to a helicopter. The aircraft did not fly as instructed and became a conflict for arrival traffic. Instructing Controller turned the helicopter to avoid the arrival. Arrival aircraft reported an RA and advised Tower they had the aircraft in sight.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Merlin III
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A SW3 checked on and I instructed the pilot to expect Visual Approach. I gave descent to 080. At approximately 35 miles north of the airport; I issued the vector of 'fly heading 160 vector to final approach course; descend to 070.' The pilot read back descend to 060; fly heading 180. I corrected the heading but did not hear the incorrect read back of altitude. I noticed the aircraft below 070 when it was at 067 and descending; I called out to the aircraft to maintain 070. No response and I again tried the aircraft with another failed attempt on the second. I believe on the third I just used the full call sign and no instructions; the pilot acknowledged and I instructed to maintain 070. He said he was issued 060 and was climbing back up to 070. The area that the aircraft descended through was a 070 foot MVA. No further incident occurred other than going below the MVA by 010 feet.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a below MVA entry event when failing to note an incorrect altitude assignment during the clearance read back.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
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 New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft X checked in for Runway XXC was told descend and maintain 040 and good rate down; leveled off at 050 while being vectored to final and told to parallel final on heading 350 and expedite down to 30; shortly after looking 1;000 feet at 2.7 miles he saw the field and was cleared.There was approximately 10 read back errors during this push due to the new mask mandate; control instructions had to be repeated to this pilot 2 times.  With the new mandate and tower restrictions forces us to land Runway XXC and XXR in IFR weather this operation is unsafe with the new altitude restrictions implemented by our supervisors.For the past 2 weeks management has told the arrival wall to not go below 4;000 feet until north of ZZZZZ (the dual fix) regardless of where the aircraft's flight path will be; this makes IFR operations very difficult to accomplish at ZZZ and is a very poor knee jerk reaction to a Controller making a simple mistake.  These type of rule changes mean that every single transmission on that wall need to be 100% clear and any read back error will cause an aircraft incident;  we cannot continue with frivolous rule changes and a mask mandate unless we would like a major incident or accident at ZZZ.Allow us to use judgment and common sense on where to turn our own airplane.  These unnecessary rule changes will cause more incidents than they will prevent.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported communication issues with pilots due to having to wear a mask which is exacerbated when new procedural changes are introduced.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Received level 1 alert 'EMER PWR ON' Alert about 1 hour prior to landing. We consulted and followed the QRH and monitored the situation; continued to destination. We closely monitored the drop in voltage on our battery. Upon reaching 21 volts we received multiple alerts and failures associated with electrical loss. We deployed the ADG (Air Driven Generator) per the QRH and continued to [destination].Electrical failure.




Synopsis: MD-11 First Officer reported continuing to their destination after experiencing electrical system anomalies.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autothrottle/Speed Control
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
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

Narrative: While level at FL190; an Auto Thrust ECAM appeared; with associated and intermittent FMA warnings of Thrust Lock and move throttle. Subsequently; the number 1 engine retarded uncommandedly to idle. Unsure; of the exact problem; and not sure if we could hold altitude while we troubleshot the problem; we declared an emergency with Center and advised them to standby. As the pilot flying; I disconnected the autopilot; retarded both throttles to idle; and we assessed both engine indications. We ensured that the Auto Thrust system was disengaged and slowly advanced each engine throttle. No other abnormalities were encountered and both engines appeared to be operating normally. We felt the situation was safe so I rescinded the emergency declaration. During the event; there were no altitude or route deviations. Subsequently; we made a safe; hand flown approach under VMC conditions.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew experienced failed autothrust capability and; after analysing their capabilities and the weather; continued utilizing continued to their destination using manual flight and thrust controls.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Tower, CA
Aircraft: A380
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Trainee; Local
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Assist 2 when training was occurring on Local Control 2.  Aircraft X took off and was climbing slow.  The Instructor told the Trainee when to say clear for takeoff to Aircraft Y.  Aircraft X stayed slow for a while and Aircraft Y was gaining on Aircraft X.  The Trainee told Aircraft Y to maintain 023 feet; but the pilot couldn't stop at that altitude so he was told to maintain 030 feet.  Aircraft X was off the scope but I was told they had around 6.5 miles instead of the 7 miles needed.  If I was working; I would have waited another 20 seconds before departing Aircraft Y.


Second narrative: I was the Developmental training on Local [Control] 2 during the event. Aircraft X departed Runway 24L and I told Aircraft Y 'At the pilot's discretion; RWY 24L LUAW; caution wake turbulence.' I crossed several aircraft down field and addressed aircraft on approach. My Trainer and I both intently watched Aircraft X's speed as they slowly accelerated offshore. We needed to wait until 7NM would exist between Aircraft X and Aircraft Y before I could say 'Cleared for takeoff.' We waited beyond the normal benchmark for obtaining this required 7NM because Aircraft X was slower than usual offshore. As the airspeed of Aircraft X increased to 170kts; I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff; anticipating that Aircraft X's speed would continue to increase--it did not; and actually maintained 170 kts off the screen. When Aircraft Y tagged up on the radar; it appeared that less than the 7NM existed; and we would not be able to obtain it without a speed or altitude adjustment. I followed my Trainer's prompting and first restricted the airspeed of Aircraft Y; then the altitude. According to my Supervisor; we ended up with 6.5 NM of separation leading to a LoSS [Loss of Standard Separation].As a Developmental with approximately 10 hours on position; I would recommend more techniques being provided for dealing with wake turbulence and how to ensure you obtain the necessary intervals. I also know that more time on position will prevent this scenario from repeating itself.


Synopsis: LAX Tower controllers reported a loss of wake turbulence separation do to aircraft speed.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During cruise flight; approximately halfway to ZZZ; I noticed a burning smell and visually detected a small amount of smoke propagating from between the glare shield and instrument bezel just above the pilot side attitude indicator. All systems continued to function normally. The smoke lasted a few minutes and did not affect my physiological state negatively (besides the unpleasant odor); or my ability to complete the flight safely to the intended destination; which at the time was also the nearest viable airport. I never felt my safety was threatened or that continuing the flight to the destination would threaten other airborne aircraft; airport personnel; passengers; or property. Upon landing all systems continued to function normally through shutdown and the smoke did not return. I contacted dispatch and related the incident. Maintenance dispatched a [Company] mechanic to ZZZ to troubleshoot. The mechanic confirmed the burning odor; but could not reproduce the problem or pinpoint the cause. After consulting with our Head of Maintenance and Chief Pilot it was determined to ferry the plane back to [a different airport]; DVFR; to continue with a more thorough inspection.

Callback: The reporter stated that never before has he encountered this kind of incident in this type of aircraft. The reporter stated that they were flying in lots of moisture and he felt this may have contributed to the problem. The reporter also stated that Maintenance completely disassembled the front of the instrument panel and were unable to find anything that could have contributed to the burning smell. The reporter stated that he has flown this aircraft several times and has not been able to duplicate the problem. The reporter stated it seemed like it was just an anomaly that this occurred because he hasn't seen it since. The reporter stated that because this is an older aircraft it may also be part of the problem.



Synopsis: Beach 1900 Captain reported a burning smell and smoke coming from behind the glare shield.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Enroute ZZZ - ZZZ1; upon reaching cruising altitude and starting to accelerate; I noticed a burning smell that was faint at first; but persistent and grew stronger. I asked the First Officer (FO) if he smelled it too; which he replied affirmatively. We then spoke with the Flight Attendant (FA) who also smelled the burning odor in the cabin. We immediately diverted to ZZZ2 with an expedited descent; all while running the QRH and normal checklists. After turning off the recirculation fan and gasper; the smell dissipated within 30 seconds. We landed without further incident and no passengers were injured.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported a fumes event during cruise. Flight crew diverted to a suitable alternate for a safe landing.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise we lost the #2 generator. It should be noted that with the same plane the #2 generator failed the flight prior. When the generator failed in cruise we realized that the AC Bus 2 also was failed. I was the pilot flying at the time and when this occurred the PFD; ND; went dark and the 2nd autopilot went off. I transferred controls over to the Captain and started to run the QRH for a Generator Fault. After completing that checklist I went to the AC BUS off QRH. We were directed to run the increased landing distance procedure and increased fuel consumption. At this point we notified ATC that we had an electrical issue and were limited on capabilities due to the loss of system 2 items. They vectored us to ZZZ at this point. We notified the company and asked for a different alternate airport [because] the weather in ZZZ1 was bad with a line of thunderstorms. We landed without incident.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reported that an electrical failure resulted in a diversion.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Military
Flight plan: None
Mission: Search & Rescue
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Military
Reporter function: Flight Safety Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS); Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Helicopter crew experienced a near midair collision with a small unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during an active search and rescue case. Crew queried other responding agencies about UAV employment as part of the search effort and increased altitude. No other UAV sightings were reported during the remainder of flight.




Synopsis: Search and rescue helicopter had a near miss with a UAS.