elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: An airport vehicle requested permission to inspect runways. After asking the supervisor if it was OK to proceed with the runway inspection; and getting permission to begin; I instructed the vehicle to proceed on to one runway and hold short of an intersecting runway. The airport vehicle read back 'proceed onto runway XX and hold short of runway YYL; I'll report clear of all runways'. I then cleared a regional jet for takeoff on the intersecting runway. As the aircraft was beginning its departure roll; I noticed the airport vehicle was almost through the intersection of the intersecting runways. The 'Collision Alert' system did not activate and the airport vehicle was through the intersection while the aircraft was still approximately 6500 feet from the intersection. The aircraft was allowed to continue his takeoff roll; as I determined the airport vehicle was clear of the runway and that it was probably too late to abort the takeoff roll.  Airport vehicles need to pay closer attention while conducting runway inspections. We have gone to great measures to come up with procedures in the tower to prevent vehicle runway incursions. But they only work if the airport vehicles can follow instructions.




Synopsis: An airport vehicle inspecting a runway was cleared to proceed onto the runway; but to hold short of an intersecting runway. The vehicle acknowledged the instruction and an aircraft was given a takeoff clearance on the intersecting runway. The vehicle ended up going through the runway intersection while the aircraft was on its takeoff roll.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Coordinator
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Ground
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the CIC and was verbal briefed 'not on a recorded line' that Aircraft X was on his way to do some DME work on Runway 13C and C90 would have them for the majority of the time until Aircraft X was completed and would then do a restricted low approach over a closed runway with personnel and equipment on it. When it came to my attention that Aircraft X was not cleared for a 'restricted' low approach he was already over the runway. I was in the process of filling out an MOR for the ASDX alert prior to knowledge of the misapplied low approach clearance.I believe this was a one time situation and the Controller would probably make sure something like this doesn't happen again.


Second narrative: Upon arriving at work; the CPC advised us that Aircraft X was inbound and told us the various procedures he needed to do; including a low approach to a closed runway. When we advised [him] that the runway was closed and occupied with numerous vehicles; he informed us there was a call between him and TRACON and possibly Washington D.C. as well and that he was told Aircraft X could perform the low approach to the closed runway. He also said Operations was informed that this would be taking place. After TRACON worked Aircraft X through his paces; he was given off to the Local Controller for the low approach. The Controller cleared him for the low approach to the closed runway. I made a blanket broadcast to all vehicles on my frequency that an airplane would be doing a low approach so they wouldn't be surprised and that there was no need to move. I remember thinking that it was odd that he hadn't given the aircraft a restricted low approach and I believe I voiced that out loud; but I can't remember if I physically verbalized it or just thought I did. Believing that this operation had been cleared through Washington D.C. I didn't think anything else of this event.Controllers should always use proper phraseology even when they believe an operation has been cleared at the highest levels. Also; all controllers should feel comfortable questioning procedures or the phraseology of their fellow controllers.


Synopsis: Two reports of an aircraft that should have done a restricted low approach over a closed runway with men and equipment on it.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Helicopter
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While the aircraft (DA40) was in the right downwind (RWY XX) performing pattern operations; a helo was cleared by Tower to enter the ramp from a cardinal direction. From the DA40's TIS; the instructor realized that both aircraft were on a converging course and altitude (TPA of 1;100). The instructor instructed the student to climb 300 ft while taking account of Class C airspace; which starts at 1;600 [feet]. The instructor and student did not see the helo from the aircraft; only on the TIS. The helo flew directly underneath the DA40. ATC did not announce potential conflict. Near miss was avoided due to TIS and mental situational awareness.




Synopsis: DA40 instructor pilot reported directing the student to climb to avoid a helicopter that was cleared by Tower into the traffic pattern at the same altitude.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Antiskid System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Confusion; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departure 2+ hours late; was uneventful. Take off; climb; cruise; descent and a stable approach were uneventful. Airplane was configured and after gear down; the checklist was commenced. After flaps 35 the checklist was completed. Shortly thereafter we got a level 2 'antiskid fail 'message. I thought out loud 'maybe we should do a go around'. We were stable and still had several minutes before landing so I pulled the checklist out and begin reading the checklist. Checklist was completed by 500 feet AGL then we continued for landing. The touchdown on the runway was normal; spoilers deployed normally and as we continued down the runway I did not feel much deceleration so I told the pilot flying 'brakes brakes'. The braking action I would describe as brisk and as the aircraft rolled to a stop you could feel the aircraft list to the left. I was unable to taxi the aircraft and the tower asked 'what was going on' and 'if we needed help.' Air fire rescue was sent to the airplane to assess damage and make sure there was no fire. AFR (Air Fire Rescue) did a quick damage assessment and told us four tires on the left main gear were flat. After landing; I reviewed the QRH and realized I had read the incorrect checklist. I had read 'auto brakes fail' instead of antiskid fail.' The logbook showed a previous 'antiskid fail' message that had been cleared by aircraft maintenance. Air fire rescue and maintenance informed us that four tires on the left main had blown and one tire on the center gear had failed.


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


Synopsis: An MD-11 flight crew reported observing an anti-skid fail warning light while on final approach. They elected to continue the approach; however several main gear tires were blown during the landing roll.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While en route; FL370; halfway; FMGC 2 failed. FO (First Officer) performed system reset with no luck. Captains FMGC displayed independent operation; while FO had nothing. 1FD1 was displayed; so FO was slaved to Captain. FO unable to use FMGC; ACARS was only available. Weather at time was 300 and 1. We continued and both Captain and FO had no concerns about completing the approach and normal landing. ATC vectored us to ILS 22; short turn 10 mile final. Went to arm the approach; approach button inop; unable to couple to the ILS. Only thing to do kick off autopilot; raw data hand flown. This was all by surprise. FO had nothing on his instruments; looked to mine and helped to about 400 ft when my comfort level of safety was exceeded. Went around; needed VMC weather. [Diversion airport] was chosen for good weather and passenger care. Declared min fuel and asked for priority handling. We canceled min fuel as we approached. Landed without incident.




Synopsis: A319 Captain reported diverting to an alternate after loss of FMGC Number 2.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FAI.Airport, AK
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D FAI
ATC / advisory: TRACON FAI
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I entered the stairwell from the break room (6th floor) I could hear a 77XX code alarm sounding in the TRACON (4th floor.) I entered the TRACON to find the Controller; the only person in the room; away from the scope and at the back of the room apparently trying to locate the source of the alarm. Note that this alarm is extremely loud; too loud. I knew where the switch was and how to silence it with a rubber band; so I told the Controller that the alarm indicated that something important was occurring at the RADAR scope and that I would silence the alarm. After silencing it; I went to the scope where I could see an aircraft east of the field with 'RF' in the ARTS data. The RADAR Controller had answered the ZAN shout line and was explaining that the aircraft was NORDO. The aircraft's route on the strip did not correlate with its position; so I asked if the aircraft had ever been on Departure frequency. The answer was no; so I prompted the RADAR to notify Local Control (LC) of the NORDO aircraft. LC was not aware of the situation and immediately issued a landing clearance and a light gun signal. Note that there is not a 77XX code alarm in the Tower cab. We need training on the vast shortcomings of the 77XX code alarm. There needs to be a way to acknowledge the emergency code alarm with out leaving the control position; ideally from the ARTS keyboard. A rubber band should not be necessary to silence the alarm. There is a very real possibility that the rubber band will be forgotten and the alarm will not be heard the next time it is needed. The alarm volume should be decreased to a reasonable level. A redundant alarm should be located in the cab; but should only activate for aircraft with in a given range of the airport; perhaps 10 NM.




Synopsis: FAI Controller voiced concern regarding the unfamiliarity of code alarm procedures by some of the Controller staff providing an example of same.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On climb out from 6;000 ft to 13;000 ft with autopilot lnav vnav engaged. Vnav stopped being engaged. As 15;000 ft selected and confirmed the auto pilot disengaged. 15;000 ft in MCP replaced with 50;000 ft readout and aural warning sounded till touch down. Reset of auto pilot auto throttle and flight director did not work. We requested priority handling from ATC. East heading and 15;000 requested for troubleshoot. Unannounciated checklist and others assessed as well as coordination with company attempted. No response from company so air return to ZZZ vfr requested. Flight attendants briefed; pax briefed; descent checklist accomplished as well as vfr approach and landing into ZZZ accomplished. Taxi to gate and parking accomplished as well.


Second narrative: Aircraft X returned to ZZZ shortly after taking off; I received an automated diversion message from the crew and noticed they had turned back toward ZZZ; I then ask if we are diverting and did not receive anything back from the crew; once on the ground they said they tried to ACARS and call dispatch and I never received any ACARS or calls from the crew besides the automated message that comes through in DV. they said they had to fly back VFR due to losing altitude and heading capabilities; I assumed the communication breakdown was related and never saw them higher than Fl110. once I realized I could not reach them and they were returning to ZZZ I called the MDO; Ops manager; and ZZZ Ops to see if they had heard anything and no one had. I then saw in the flight feed portion of DV ops reported the Mode Control Fault.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported autopilot system failure resulting in an expedited landing.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: E10.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Military
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use R2508
ATC / advisory: TRACON E10
Second aircraft: Military
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were Restricted Area participants operating VFR see and avoid. They were issued a clearance allowing them to operate up to FL500 in the work area (ATCAA) and only FL290 another work area (ATCAA). Aircraft X and Aircraft Y climbed above their clearance without authorization to FL294 when I attempted to tell them to descend immediately. They were on a mission frequency; so I un-keyed and enabled my communication on the mission frequency and told them to descend below FL290 immediately and they were only operating on a (specified) clearance and repeated 'Descend Immediately.' I transmitted this at FL298 and the aircraft did not respond. Aircraft Z was westbound from ZZZ intersection to YYY VORTAC at FL320. Aircraft X and Aircraft Y reached FL304 before starting their descent over the course of 1-2 seconds. Aircraft Z reported TCAS RA climb and ascended above FL340. I said; 'Roger' and then informed him of the traffic off his four o'clock position descending. I read Aircraft X and Aircraft Y flight the brasher notification. Aircraft Z returned to FL320.Due to the climb performance of Aircraft X and Aircraft Y; I don't think the level of traffic or workload was too extreme as I caught the pilot deviation immediately. We are trained to watch closely as these type of aircraft get closer to their clearance limits for instances like this. I could have possibly reminded them they are only operating on a (specified) clearance; but seeing the Aircraft X and Y above FL280 is a common occurrence. I believe in addition to instructing the Aircraft X and Y aircraft to descend immediately; I should have also included a traffic alert for both the X and Y aircraft and Aircraft Z.




Synopsis: E10 TRACON Controller stated two aircraft operating in a Restricted Area busted their altitude assignment causing a third aircraft to climb due to RA.
Date: 202006
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Aircraft X landed in ZZZ.  The aircraft went to remote parking and pitot covers were installed.No write up was generated.The aircraft was on a scheduled departure three days later.  The flight crew generated a write up when they found the circuit breakers for the pitot system with CB collars installed.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technician reported flight crew generated a write up when they found the circuit breakers for the pitot system with CB collars installed. The aircraft had been sitting for three days.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Taxi; Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Two highly experienced pilots on second leg of a 5-leg day. Had just done an aircraft swap for a 15 minute flight in marginal weather conditions. Pushed back from gate and de-iced. Just as we were starting our first engine; ATC advised us of a 15 minute delay awaiting the arrival of an inbound aircraft (non-radar environment). We elected to use our company's single engine taxi-out procedure. Almost immediately; ATC advised that there would be no delay if we 'keep things moving.'  Started second engine; taxied; and departed.  As soon as we were airborne; my ears told me something might be amiss with the cabin pressurization. Sure enough; some pressurization panel switches were not in the normal positions.  Corrected and continued.First time with a 5-leg day in years. (Have been flying mostly turns).  First time to de-ice this season. First time to use revised de-icing procedures. First time for me to fly in a high workload; non-radar area of our route system in a couple of years. First time for me to use single engine taxi-out procedure in at least a year. As a crew; we had discussed these issues and how the 'Swiss cheese holes could line up'. Bottom line was we allowed interruptions; changes of plans; and a desire to 'keep the operation moving' to get in the way of not completely finishing the after start flow and checklist.  We even talked about a 'safety  pause'; but obviously didn't pause enough.




Synopsis: A B737 crew took off unpressurized because they were rushed to takeoff after de-icing; planning a single engine taxi; and then were suddenly released for takeoff before they were ready.