elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading 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: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ACR X was bound for Middleton (Harrisburg Int'l).  About 10 minutes later he asked for FL180 for a final; and I then issued it as his final.  He then asked for 'direct to the field'.  I paused and issued the pilot 'direct to Harrisburg'; then entered direct Harrisburg (HAR) in the computer. The Pilot read back 'direct Harrisburg'; and that was the end of it.  Later the Operations manager and my supervisor advised me that a controller in area 5 ( who works the Harrisburg airspace noticed that the aircraft was slightly off course; and asked the pilot if he was direct Harrisburg VOR; or Harrisburg Airport. The pilot said 'airport'.  The controller then turned the incident in to his supervisor; because (HAR was in the computer; not KMDT) the airport identifier.  The issue is: When I issued the pilot 'direct Harrisburg' (HAR); my intent was exactly that; to send the pilot to Harrisburg VOR.  I never said 'Harrisburg Airport'.  The pilot took the clearance as Harrisburg airport; and went direct to MDT.  His readback was 'direct Harrisburg'; not 'direct Harrisburg airport'.  Which would have prompted me correct him.  To my knowledge there were no other airspace violations or loss of separation as a result of this.  Management made me aware of the situation because I never realized I did anything incorrectly.  My knowledge of the rules was that if I wanted to send an aircraft to the airport; I specified 'airport'. Airports and their corresponding VORs should not have the same name.  This adds confusion between the pilots and controllers. I am aware this is an ongoing problem; that is happening regularly.  Pilots and controller should be on the same page.  If the intent is to send the aircraft to the airport; than 'airport should have to be stated and read-back.




Synopsis: ZOB Controller reported being surprised when a clearance 'direct Harrisburg' resulted in the aircraft proceeding to the airport instead of the VOR.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0001-0600
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
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Getting vectors into ZZZ at night at 10;000 feet; and 290 KIAS. Given a descent to 4;000 feet and a heading. Descended below 10;000 while still at 290 KIAS. I caught it at 9;000 feet; and immediately slowed to 250 KIAS using speed brakes. Controller did not say anything and we were not in proximity to other aircraft.Five hour ground stop in ZZZ1. Longer than usual flight plan with minor weather deviations. Was very tired; and this was only my second flight in three months. No Excuse! I think for sure fatigue and currency played a role; but I should not have made this mistake.Pay closer attention.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported experiencing an airspeed deviation and cited fatigue and lack of recent flying experience as contributing factors.
Date: 201404
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X was an RDU arrival that was forced into R29/30's airspace by ZDC. The aircraft was attempting to deviate through weather in an attempt to land RDU. At the time; I was monitoring the sector as a new OS. When a handoff was attempted to ZDC; the Controller unabled the handoff and instructed the R-side to hold the aircraft. Holding instructions were issued at the GSO VORTAC. The pilot declined the holding and said the weather was too bad and that he was also unable to reverse course. At the time; there was hail and tornadoes reported in the weather immediately to the aircrafts west side. The ZTL Controller attempted to communicate this to the ZDC Controller and the ZDC Controller said 'point out approved'. The ZTL Controller then stated he was unable to continue working the aircraft in ZDC's airspace and that this was a handoff; not a point out. The ZDC Controller said unable and refused to answer the line for future communications. Meanwhile; the aircraft was 10 miles inside of ZDC's airspace and unable to turn around or hold. When the Supervisor at ZDC was contacted; she refused to help as well. At the time severe turbulence had also been associated with that weather. ZDC Controller and Supervisor should receive additional training on teamwork; fundamental 7110 handoff procedures (including the fact that it is illegal for a receiving controller to initiate a point out); and skill enhancement training on working with weather. There is no reason the relationship between ZTL and ZDC should be so one-sided. In this case; the ZDC Controller attempted to force an aircraft in to a VERY unsafe situation that could have resulted in an aircraft loss. This situation needs to be analyzed thoroughly and steps taken to ensure this situation does not occur in the future. Not only did the Controller and Supervisor act unprofessional but they attempted to negligently place an aircraft in harms way in clear violation of 7110.65 rules and procedures.




Synopsis: ZTL Front Line Manager reports of another Center refusing to accept a handoff on an aircraft in severe weather.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Flight to OAK listed SJC as an alternate due to low ceiling and visibility in OAK (700/4). I checked the NOTAMS for SJC and noticed that the RNP Z Runway 30L had two NOTAMS listed that raised the approach DA (Decision Altitude)/HAT (Height above Terrain) for .15 RNP approaches; but the two NOTAMS were not the same. FDC 8/3608 raised the DA to 446 ft. and FDC 8/7886 raised the DA to 674 ft. Today's date was within the valid dates of BOTH NOTAMS. Unless I misread some of the details; there should only be 1 NOTAM that changes DA/HAT for a given date; giving rise to confusion as to which NOTAM applied. The conservative course of action would be to fly the higher minimums of 674 ft. DA. The system which we use for NOTAMS should ensure only 1 NOTAM is listed to avoid conflicts such as this.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported the Decision Altitude for the RNP Z runway 30L increased to two different values after two different NOTAMS were applied.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZSE
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After having a long period of time off I came back and worked 2 days before this. Summer traffic is known to be busy. We had 2 call-ins and there wasn't anyone to come help me. I was working 3 sectors combined and lost the picture. It was noticed 2 hours earlier in the day by the CIC (Controller In Charge) that we would be short around this time; which we only had CIC that day; and we should call in overtime. No one was called; the [Operations Manager] didn't approve it. The multiple sectors and frequencies were overwhelming. I didn't have a D-Side (Assist) and had to give a clearance to Flight Data that is new to giving clearances. I gave them the clearance and then had to repeat myself; meanwhile; getting behind on frequency with multiple aircraft calling. I turned a departure on course and he sped up more than I thought while the aircraft I stopped below shallowed out his climb. I missed it. Oakland High called and got control and fixed my situation. I think I missed a point out to Oakland Low on the slow climber too; I really don't know. I was distracted by a primary target going straight towards a regional jet on approach that took all the attention. I finally was able to split a sector to another controller. I wasn't able to give a real briefing or hand off data blocks. He had to okay them. It was an unsafe situation. When I sat down I said; 'This is too much for one person' then it took what felt like forever for someone to split the sector and help.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller working combined sectors reported a loss of separation and an airspace violation due to lack of staffing.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Aircraft component: Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While enroute; a fuel leak was discovered in the left wing tank. The rate of the leak was slow and stopped. Aircraft Operation Manual (AOM) procedures were complied with and the fuel was monitored continually to the point of a safe landing. [Next day] while enroute; the left wing [tank] appeared to be leaking again. Soon after it appeared it stopped. As such it was determined to safely continue the flight. The fuel level and parameters per AOM were complied with and ZZZ was determined to be a suitable airport. Careful attention was paid to the fuel levels and wing for further issues. The flight landed safely with 3500 lbs of fuel on board.Deeper investigation by maintenance of the left wing.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.


Synopsis: An EMB-145 Captain encountered a fuel leak in the left wing of the same aircraft on flights a day apart. Inadequate maintainence was cited by the reporter.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Main Gear Tire
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After landing Tower asked if we needed assistance. We asked them why? Tower informed us we had smoke coming out of the right wheel. We stopped the aircraft and requested the fire equipment. We informed the passengers to remain seated and not be alarmed and that there was no danger. We looked out the window at the tires there was no smoke. One tire was flat and the other tire on the right wheel well was stressed from the weight. We called Maintenance; Dispatch; and Operations to let them know what was going on. The Crash Captain showed up and said the wheel was not on fire; but flat. He also said the other wheel was not fully inflated. The Crash Captain said they took a thermal picture of the wheel and the brakes were cool. Maintenance called and said they did not think we should tow or taxi the aircraft. We obtained vans to take the passengers to baggage claim and got the ramp crew to unload the bags and take them to baggage claim. Maintenance changed the tire and found the right wheel brake had locked. We then de-briefed the crew. There were no injuries and all crew members and passengers were well. All crew members; firefighters; airport operations personal; air traffic controllers; ramp personal; station personal; performed their duties extremely well and displayed excellent crew coordination. The out board brake was locked on touchdown causing the tire to deflate.




Synopsis: A B737-800 Captain was informed by the Tower of smoke coming from the right main gear after landing. CFR was requested. The out board tire was found to be deflated and the brake on that wheel locked.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was maneuvering in the practice area and had just taken the control from the student when the engine began to run very rough. Realizing it was an engine problem I immediately turned towards the airport and pitched for the best glide airspeed the engine tachometer with full power was only making 2100 RPM or just inside the green arc. Realizing that I was unable to hold my altitude of 2;600 FT MSL; I held my best glide airspeed and continued towards the airport. I contacted Approach Control and advised them that I was having engine problems; was unable to maintain altitude; and that I was declaring an emergency. We continued towards the airport while continuing to lose altitude. Once reaching an altitude of 1;500 FT MSL we were able to hold altitude with full power. We continued to the airport at 1;500 FT MSL and had a quite uneventful landing.When I was unable to hold altitude with full power I knew one of two things was going to happen. Either I was going to be descending down to an altitude that I could maintain level flight or I was going to be forced to do an off airport landing. Knowing that a Cessna 150 can have some performance issues when it is producing full power; especially with the density altitude that can occur in the middle of the day in [a warm climate] not helping the issues. I wanted to be talking to some controlling agency that would have an idea of where we were if we had to execute an off airport landing and at least make them aware of my situation. Everyone that helped with the emergency was very accommodating and they were very helpful. I just felt at the time not knowing what was going on with the engine and not being able to hold altitude declaring an emergency was the best course of action.




Synopsis: A C150 lost engine power in the practice area. The Instructor assumed control; declared an emergency; and was able to safely return to the airport.
Date: 201901
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We received an ACARS message at the gate with a preliminary DG (Dangerous Goods) notification of lithium batteries. The shipment was assigned a code of [#XX]. I always look up the code and write down the first steps on the form in case there is an emergency. I was surprised to see that there was no code [#]; the codes only went to [#-1]. I told the Captain; I believe he called Dispatch and discussed it with him. We were told that the shipment was lithium batteries. The Captain advised the Dispatcher/Load Planner (not sure who he called) that; although that was helpful to know; we needed to know the actual code for the DG items in case we had to pass it to Fire & Rescue. The shipment was subsequently removed from the aircraft.




Synopsis: B777 First Officer reported a communication breakdown between flight crew and Dispatch regarding Hazmat documentation.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FHB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E FHB
ATC / advisory: CTAF FHB
Second aircraft: Bellanca Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While turning a left crosswind on an instructional flight for the active Runway 9 at FHB I heard a call asking if Runway 19 was the active runway for FHB. On the CTAF I stated 'no; Runway Niner is in use and we are now turning left downwind.' As I was talking I started scanning for any traffic seeing as how this was his first radio transmission and he did not state a position. As I looked at a heading of 360; which was now directly to our 3 o'clock; I saw a low wing aircraft approximately 500 ft to our right and slightly high. I immediately took controls form my student; pulled power to idle and push the nose over about 20 degrees. He then proceeded to cross through the departure course of Runway 9 and started a right turn to re-intercept the right downwind to Runway 9 parallel to our course. During this time I started to tell him about the situation he just caused and how simply making better radio calls and by having A LOT more situational awareness of your location to not only the airport but to the correct runway; could of easily solved the problem of a near mid-air collision and the probable deaths of all on board both aircraft.




Synopsis: PA28 instructor pilot reports taking evasive action at 800 feet AGL while turning downwind; to avoid a Bellanca entering the pattern on the crosswind. The Bellanca pilot had made one radio transmission enquiring about the active runway without stating his position.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our Cirrus SR22/G was parked. While waiting for my clearance; I reached down to adjust my seat. The seat abruptly slid all the way back to the maximum furthest back and lowest position. I quickly realized the aircraft began to move forward. My seatbelt and the max-back seat position made it impossible for me to reach both brake/rudder pedals and stop the aircraft.  As I continued to struggle; I was finally able reach the left pedal and turn the aircraft to avoid hitting other aircraft parked near me; but I still could not reach both pedals to stop the airplane. Eventually; I was able to direct the plane towards a large dumpster to avoid other aircraft in the area.  I hit the dumpster and the aircraft came to a full stop; damaging the propeller and propeller spinner.  The damage to my aircraft was not substantial; and therefore; not an accident under 49 C.F.R Part 830. My lesson is to reset the brakes pressing hard on the brake pedals once I get back inside the plane.  I'll also avoid any seat adjustment after engine start-up.  Plus my plan is to put something behind my seat to prevent the seat from going too far back.




Synopsis: SR22 Pilot reported loss of aircraft control on ramp due to seat adjustment prevented access to controls; resulted in ground collision with dumpster.