elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Climbing through FL400 to cruising altitude of FL430 cabin pressurization became erratic. Red CAS message illuminated (cabin pressure) cabin altitude was 10;500 and climbing at 1;500 FT a minute. Stopped climb and donned the oxygen masks and turned on the seatbelt and no smoking signs. A quick assessment was done and an emergency descent was initiated. [We] followed the emergency descent checklist with a left turn to clear the airway. Contacted ATC and declared an emergency and requested 10;000 FT altitude. Once level at 10;000 FT checked the aircraft; the flight attendant; and passengers. We then diverted to a suitable airport.


Second narrative: [No additional information]


Synopsis: A GLF4 flight crew initiated an emergency descent; declared an emergency and diverted to a nearby airport following a loss of cabin pressurization.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On climb; as we came out of a cloud; encountered a flock of Geese. We hit the flock and felt the hits. Engine parameters remained normal. Returned back to departure airport and executed an overweight landing. During the event; the QRH overweight landing checklist had us refer to the performance section of the manuals. Both myself First Officer (FO) and Captain (CA) tried to refer to the section and found that Both of our apps had stalled. In order for me to get to the reference page; I had to close the app and relaunch it. Totally unacceptable in this situation.  I don't use my company iPad for any personal use and only have my FOM and the Jepps app open while flying. All other apps remain closed as part of my preflight. I open the app before departure to ensure that I have the needed performance and reference items available if needed. I have had this app freeze up in the past and so I was hoping the most recent update would solve this problem. However; this event proved that it did not. This app is not helpful in a critical situation. Someone needs to fix it!




Synopsis: B757 First Officer (FO) reports hitting a flock of geese during climbout. The engines appear unscathed; but a return to the departure airport occured. The Captain and the FO both attempt to access their iPad's for overweight landing information to find both apps frozen.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E L30
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the departure from LAS; climbing through 12;000 FT via the STAAV 5 RNAV; while crossing the STAAV waypoint; ATC asked if we were going to make the altitude restriction at TRALR since it looked like we had missed the altitude restriction at STAAV. We replied that we did not show an altitude restriction at TRALR. ATC replied that there was a 17;000 FT restriction at TRALR and to contact the next Controller on XXX.XX frequency. We checked in with the next Controller and inquired an altitude restriction at TRALR to which the Controller replied that he did not show a restriction at TRALR and standby. ATC again contacted us within a minute and verified there is no altitude restriction at TRALR. At or above crossing restrictions on departures are not often difficult to comply with.A number of factors contributed to this event:- Low climb rate due to the high gross weight of this flight- Accelerating out of 10;000 FT- New procedure out of 10;000 FT AFL not AGL;- The location of this crossing restriction of 13;000 FT- Typically ATC gives a new altitude deleting the restriction- Insufficient monitoring of the automation[The deviation could have been avoided by] improved monitoring of the:- At or above climb restrictions;- Color changes (warnings) on the MCDU and PFD.




Synopsis: An A320 flight crew; crossing STAAV at 12;000 MSL on the STAAV RNAV SID from LAS was reminded by ATC that the fix was required to have been crossed at 13;000 and asking if they intended to cross the next fix; TRALR; at 17;000. TRALR has no crossing restriction published on the chart.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was a CXO departure climbing inside of I90 airspace on the LCH departure.  I90 switched him to me climbing to 160 with 2 WAPPL arrivals descending on top of him.  My D-Side called over to DAS to point the departure out and they referenced Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z on the [Arrival].   I called over to Approach to tell them I was delaying him at 160 for the arrivals.  The I90 Controller told me to put him on a 120 heading to avoid the arrivals in which I did.  This departure is not procedurally separated from these WAPPL arrivals and we can't climb the CXO/DWH departures with the lack of separation.  The I90 Controller continued to descend the arrivals through the altitudes of Aircraft X.  Once they were cleared inside of approach airspace I climbed the departure.  This to my knowledge happens on a daily basis and is a very unsafe condition.Look into a procedure change on the north satellite departures going out the Trios gate to.




Synopsis: ZHU Controller describes scenario where a departure is taken off its route to allow its climb; while it comes into conflict with two arrivals.  The Controller describes the routes are not able to climb or descend traffic laterally but controllers do this everyday.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload
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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When we received a takeoff clearance for 36C we were instructed 'cleared for takeoff fly runway heading'. Upon taking off and flying runway heading tower told us we should be turning to a 330 heading as it states on the departure procedure (ESTRR1). However according to the procedure we are to do a 330 or last assigned by ATC. We were last assigned runway heading so this is what we were doing.A simple miscommunication between flight crew and ATC.




Synopsis: A flight crew reported a deviation from a departure clearance due to a communication issue with ATC.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on short final to the runway; our Piper 140 encountered violent rotor wash due to National Guard military helicopters maneuvering in close proximity to the active runway. As our aircraft was on short final over the threshold end of the runway; a Black Hawk helicopter began to lift to a high hover. His call to maneuver was last minute. As a result of the rotor wash; the aircraft became uncontrollable; rolling into an approximate 180 [90] degree bank attitude with near vertical downward descent. Once the plane encountered the rotor wash; there was absolutely no aileron effectiveness to control the aircraft. Cooperating procedures between military and general aviation aircraft would have contributed to the avoidance of such rotor wash encounters.




Synopsis: A Piper 140 pilot encountered violent rotor wash from military helicopters maneuvering in close proximity to the active runway.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were on a PDC clearance from DEN via the BAYLR1 RNAV SID. The PDC clearly stated the altitude clearance limit of 10;000 feet MSL. We reviewed the SID and noted it had a limit of FL230 with various lower altitude hold downs. We then agreed to set the first hard altitude of 10;000 feet MSL in the Altitude Alerter window. We were cleared for takeoff; RNAV to DUGME and the BAYLR SID. DUGME had an altitude constraint to cross at 10;000 feet MSL. I was Pilot Flying and I made a normal takeoff. The Captain checked in with Denver Departure and reported climbing out of 7;500 feet for FL230 with the restrictions. He then cleared us to FL230 without restrictions and turned us off the SID with a left turn to 260 degrees in order to climb off track above slower traffic ahead. At around 16;000 feet MSL he re-cleared us direct BAYLR intersection and switched us to another Departure frequency. The new Controller further cleared us to FL260 and then asked us why we were above 10;000 feet. Incredulously; the Captain replied because we were cleared to FL230 on initial contact. The Departure Controller then went on a litany of minutiae explaining that you only get 10;000 feet out of Denver. That was a hard altitude. Period.When we were issued an RNAV departure; we checked the plate for altitude limits and then set the first restriction. This being a brand new RNAV SID; they (ATC) should have noted that our initial check-in was in error. We stated climbing to FL230 with restrictions. They just acknowledged it and took out the restrictions. I do fully admit that our PDC stated maintain 10;000 feet; but I (we) got wrapped up in the RNAV SID clearance limit instead.


Second narrative: ]No substantive additional information was included in the secondary narrative.]


Synopsis: A B737-700 flight crew departing westbound from DEN was given a PDC including the BAYLR RNAV SID which includes multiple altitude constraints as well as a clearance to maintain 10;000 feet MSL. After takeoff; confusion as to their cleared altitude resulted.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Cruise altitude of FL330. ATC had advised of weather ahead. We were unable to paint anything on radar. We both looked outside several times and were unable to see any build ups. It was a moonless night. I saw we were headed into a build up just seconds prior to entering it. I disconnected the auto pilot and auto throttles to better manage the event. We were in the build up for probably 20 seconds. During that time we encountered significant up and down drafts; in addition to moderate turbulence. We had an altitude excursion of approximately +200 feet and -500 feet. Once out of the buildup; we resumed level flight at FL 330 and advised ATC of what had happened.We flew into a build up that we were unable to display on radar or see visually. The night being moonless probably contributed.Suggestions: Honestly I do not know. ATC advised of weather ahead of us. We did our best to find it on radar; but were unable. We also made a concerted effort to see it visually; but with no luck.




Synopsis: A300 Captain reported he was advised by ATC of weather ahead that the crew was unable to see on radar which resulted in an altitude excursion above and below assigned altitude due to turbulence.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: Tower MSP
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: MSP Tower was operating a 30's/35 Converging Runway Operations (CRO)/ Arrival Departure Window (ADW) operation with strong wind and gusts. Aircraft X notified local control west of a loss/gain (a phrase universally used by flight crews when encountering windshear) of airspeed of 15kts on Runway 35. Local Controller West (LCW) notified the Controller in Charge (CIC) with the tower operations manager and a supervisor present. Aircraft Y notified Local Control West of a loss/gain of 15kts at 400 AGL. Sustained winds had been average around 290 at 20 gusting to 26. LCW notified the CC of a second report of loss/gain of airspeed on Runway 35. The Cab Coordinator (CC); CIC nor Operation Manager (OM) or Sup asked LCW if the aircraft would categorize this as 'windshear' which is required by MSP SOP. CRO ops were allowed to continue at MSP even though a direct violation of MSP SOP's happened in front of the observing OM; CIC and CC.I would stop allowing MSP SOP's to require the controllers and flight crews to be over burdened with semantics (16-13(b) during a critical phrase of flight by questioning the pilots about windshear. Second if this requirement remains I would expect the OM; CIC; SUP and or CC to assure it's compliance by controllers during the safety sensitive operations of CRO/ADW] at MSP.




Synopsis: MSP Controller reported of windshear at the airport and management not changing the runway configuration.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On downwind to XXR; cleared for visual; I set 2800 feet. Captain verified it. On base leg; we were told of a King Air on the opposite side. We saw it on TCAS. I'd planned and briefed joining final outside FAF; as we were still descending to GSIA (Glide Slope Intercept Altitude). As I turned to base; about 3 miles outside FAF; I looked left to see the runway and adjusted the heading bug slightly to left for better intercept angle; or so I thought. All of a sudden; the sight picture looked lower; I looked up and the aircraft was at 2100-2200 feet MSL. I looked at the alerter and it was set to 1500 feet. Clicked autopilot off; climbed back up to 2800 feet MSL. At this time; ATC gave us a low altitude alert. We acknowledged; and at 2800 MSL; intercepted glideslope and continued on approach to landing. I think I may have inadvertently twisted the altitude alerter instead of heading bug to the left as I was setting a better intercept angle. But because the visual picture looked low; I was able to recognize and correct the situation.




Synopsis: B-737 First Officer reported descending below glideslope intercept altitude during vector to final.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30; Tower LAS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While approaching LAS on the GRNPA Arrival; we expected the RNAV VISUAL RWY 19L approach. The ATIS stated that visual approaches were in use for 19L/R and 7L/R. I thoroughly briefed the RNAV Visual 19L; as this approach plate states to expect it when 19L/R is in use. As we crossed LUXOR; we were given a 170 heading and told to expect direct TRROP and the RNAV VISUAL 19L. We were informed to slow to 210 knots; and then descended to 9;000 FT. We were cleared direct TRROP; descend to 6;000 FT; and I believe; cleared for the RNAV Visual 19L. Then; that Controller handed us off to the next Approach Controller; and he told us to slow to 170 KTS and asked if we had the airport in sight. We reported the airport in sight as we approached TRROP; and he cleared us; 'After TRROP; go direct LEMNZ; cross it at or above 3;500; cleared for the visual 19L.' We had not been expecting to go back on the GRNPA Arrival (where LEMNZ is located) so it took several seconds to get the fix back in the box. I flew a heading of about 270 for the direction of LEMNZ. As it turns out; LEMNZ is 8.5 miles from TRROP (on the arrival); while RIZZN is 8.6 miles from TRROP (on the RNAV Visual) so the fixes were overlapping each other on the ND; making it impossible to read either. As we neared the final approach course; ATC asked us if we were on a heading or track. I replied that we were having trouble with LEMNZ; but we had it now and would cross at 3;500 FT. He said to disregard the altitude restriction; spacing was good with the aircraft ahead; and contact Tower. We landed without further incident.




Synopsis: A320 Captain experiences confusion transitioning from the GRNPA arrival at LAS to the RNAV visual approach to Runway 19L. The last fix on the GRNPA; LEMNZ; is very close to the first fix RIZZN; on the RNAV visual and overlap on the ND and are not readable.