elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: VYYF.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center VYYF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After takeoff in a climb to FL270 we were advised to contact Yangon on 127.65 passing FL190. As one knows we had difficulty contacting Yangon till we were level at FL270 approaching CHILA Intersection. We asked for a climb to FL390 as filed. Yangon cleared us to FL370. This clearance was hard to understand due to radio quality and person speaking. The First Officer tried to confirm 3 times this clearance. Once sure of the altitude cleared to we started our climb to FL370. Now we are lightweight at 190;000 lbs so our climb gradient was around 3000 FPM. Once the climb had been started Yangon amended the level off to FL290 as we were passing FL300. At this time we expeditiously stopped the climb and returned to FL290 reaching FL305 as a high point. I don't consider this an altitude deviation since we did not go thru an assigned altitude but was given a revised level off after a clearance to climb to FL370. But with our climb rate and the time the clearance was given we were already above the new assigned altitude. After leveling at FL290 we were given a clearance to FL310 which we complied with. After that we did climb to FL370 and the rest of the flight was uneventful.Yangon is the problem. The radio quality is always bad and understanding the controller is always a challenge. Other aircraft receiving instructions would reply unreadable. With the amount of traffic thru there I wonder why no one requires better communication with better radios. They are CPDLC now; that helps; but we were not connected yet. Better radios would alleviate any possible misunderstanding of clearances; as well as timely communication when needed since contactability can be an issue.




Synopsis: Captain describes the routine communication difficulties encountered when in communication with Yangon Control; this time resulting in a possible altitude assignment misunderstanding. The problem is due to both poor communications equipment and poor English speaking ability.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: C90 Chicago TRACON has a long since known RADAR issue where they don't see hand offs flashing at them on the 'West flow' arrival stream; i.e.; the WATSN1 arrival. Planes routinely get to near HULLS; a point they cross at 120 and that is only 2 miles South of C90 Approach airspace; without the hand off taken by C90. This result in numerous calls daily for hand offs. In this case; I was just giving up the BEARZ/KOKOMO combined sector to another Controller. When done with the relief briefing; I scanned the Air Carrier X data block again and slid over to the D-Side position to call C90 for the hand off. They called RADAR and actually accepted the data block right on our common boundary. This issue has happened routinely for at least 1.5+ years. The issue involves staffed positions at C90 and also the Tinley Park; IL RADAR site not getting RDAT/BDAT until very close to C90 airspace. I'd suggest a new procedure where; say; C90 call ZAU; to say RADAR contact on planes well before HULLS way point. This can be accomplished because separate from whatever C90's RADAR screens look like; they have an overhead 'big picture' display with call signs and positions on it from which they could 'call RADAR' from well before HULLS.




Synopsis: ZAU Controller voiced concern regarding the long standing late handoff issue with C90 involving aircraft on the WARSN 1 arrival.  The reporter suggested a procedural change to minimize the current problem.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Tower, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON MSP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the visual approach the Captain and I both noted a white object off the left side of the aircraft. We were under just above 1;000 ft. and I would estimate the object was roughly 1;000 ft. away from us. We continued the approach and landed without incident. After landing; a passenger came from the back and said; 'Did you all see that drone go by on approach? It hung with us for a little while.' The captain reported the possible UAV to MSP ground. A possible UAV was flying well within the confines of the Class Bravo airspace.




Synopsis: CRJ pilot reported a Drone near their aircraft while on approach in Class B airspace.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BTV.Airport, VT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BTV
ATC / advisory: Tower BTV
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: First Officer was on base leg to BTV and descending to Traffic Pattern Altitude (TPA) of 1;800 FT MSL when passing through 2;000 FT MSL; the EGPWS 'TERRAIN' aural alert was issued. The First Officer stopped the descent and initiated a shallow climb to clear the aural alert; leveled momentarily; then resumed the scheduled descent to the field with no further incident. Both the Captain and First Officer verified that no terrain on the MFD was in conflict with the aircraft and a visual check of the surrounding terrain was verified. No further alerts were issued and the approach was completed per normal company profile.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer experiences an EGPWS terrain warning during a day visual approach to BTV. The descent is stopped and a shallow climb is initiated which silences the warning. The visual approach is continued to landing.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: 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: Climbing through approximately 15;000 ft. we had a left pack trip. We leveled off at FL190 and accomplished the PACK non-normal checklist. The left pack light extinguished; but re-illuminated after about a minute. We re-ran the PACK checklist again and the left pack light extinguished again. I suggested to the FO (First Officer) to check the three supply duct temperatures after the second left pack trip. We observed the aft supply duct temperature to be excessively high; approximately 70 degrees C; and rising. I then suggested that we turn the Aft Cab Temp Selector to off. After we did that the aft supply duct temperature seemed to stabilize; but was still high. I noticed the left ram door full open light was illuminated as well. There was also a slight burning smell in the cockpit. I attempted to have the Dispatcher call me in the hopes of getting a phone patch with [Maintenance] via the Call Me prompt. We never heard the Dispatcher over the frequency; and only briefly heard San Francisco Arinc. Arinc attempted several SELACAL's ; but we could hear no one on the designated frequency. I suggested a new frequency to Dispatch via acars; but never heard back. At this point the left pack was stabilized; and we had burned some fuel by staying low. Both the FO and myself felt that it was much safer to return to [departure airport] rather than climb to FL390 with an overheating; compromised pack. We diverted safely and contacted both [Operations Manager] and Dispatcher. We also thoroughly briefed the mechanics at the return gate.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported returning to departure airport after twice experiencing left pack trip.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: After pushback; while centered on Taxiway D8 in the alley between terminals [1 and 2]; I noticed multitudes of vehicle traffic (Passenger buses; tugs; fuel trucks; etc.) moving along the edge of the alley. Unfortunately; those Ground vehicles have no defined lane to stay within that guarantees wingtip clearance from taxiing aircraft. As a result; the Ground traffic did not move in a standardized flow/distance from our aircraft in the alley. In fact; depending on size/type of aircraft parked at their gates; the ground traffic was not able to move in a straight line and would move out toward the center of the alley. In my assessment; the risk for misjudging vehicle/aircraft wing tip clearance; by either Aircrew or Ground Personnel; will increase during low ambient light and/or low visibility conditions.Airport Operations should paint a Ground vehicle taxi lane that guarantees clearance from aircraft pushing and entering/exiting the length of the alley between Terminal 1 and 2. Operations should emphasize the higher risk/potential for collision in this area during annual Ground Operator refresher training and initial qualification. At a minimum; update Company bulletin to warn Crews about uncontrolled vehicle movement in close proximity to taxiing/pushing aircraft and the need for increased vigilance.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that ground vehicles at LAX Airport have no defined travel lane to remain clear of taxiing aircraft in areas between Terminal 1 and 2.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
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; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through 35;000 feet we had an airspeed disagree flag. During the arrival we had altitude disagree and EEC ALT both occur. We determined the Captain (CA) side was giving erroneous information. His airspeed was displaying 10-35 knots different from the standby and First Officer (FO) side. [Center] asked us to slow to 210. A few minutes later ATC asked our speed. We told him 240 and [were] trying to get it down to 210 since we had an unreliable airspeed problem. He said to slow to 190 and that he would pass that info along to the next controller.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported a speed deviation occurred while they were dealing with an unreliable airspeed indicator.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Banner Tow
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I have an aerial advertising company and was contracted to fly a total of 4 hour and 15 minute flight over a concert.  The FAA requirements are that aerial advertising aircraft are to be at a minimum of 1000 AGL while towing banners over populated areas.  There were continuous mild to moderate up and downdrafts over the venue area.  I was flying a 5 ft letter banner approximately 120 ft long.  Most of the time I was at 1100 to 1200 AGL to cushion any downdrafts that normally show up.  Probably 4 or 5 times in the 3 hours I was over the venue; I got into a moderate downdraft of 1000 feet per minute descent from a little more powerful downdraft and my initial power applications were not enough to stop the descent before dropping to 900 AGL.  I have a Garmin 496 GPS that has a very accurate Vertical Speed indicator that I use to detect downward vertical movement. Maybe two of those times I was also being directed by Approach Control to look for approaching aircraft that were in my general area and my attention was diverted for a little more outside time than my normal scan and I got a late start on the power application. Corrective actions would be to be a little more aggressive on power applications.  That being said we also have to consider the noise issues of the people we are flying circles around. The more power the more potential for complaints.  I will also try and be 50 to 100 ft higher to have a little more cushion on that 1000 ft minimum when we have the potential for stronger downdrafts.




Synopsis: Banner tow pilot reported operating below the FAR mandated floor of 1000 feet AGL while circling an outdoor event due to turbulence and downdrafts.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Confusion; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After a frustrating 2 1/2 hour delay for maintenance we received our clearance just before reaching the end of the runway. The new clearance was not quite as expected; as it bypassed the first fix to go to the second fix direct.  I tried to remove the first fix. Then I noticed it had dropped the takeoff airport and runway out of the flight plan. So I rebuilt the flight plan and we were subsequently cleared for takeoff. By this point we had finished the checklist so the captain and I reviewed the flight plan took the runway and we started our take off. The Captain set the thrust levers in the FLEX detent and I realized that no FLEX temperature was entered so I immediately called for TOGA.  The captain selected TOGA and we continued our take off. I called 80 knots and then realized we had no speeds. I remembered the speeds; so called them out and we continued the take off.Realize that on the Airbus; if the takeoff airport/runway drops out; you lose performance data as well.


Second narrative: If flight plan drops out of the MCDU; be sure to go back through EVERY page of the initial set up of the box to make sure that ALL data is in the box and correct. It is a great idea to COPY the fight plan into the secondary flight plan to use as a backup.


Synopsis: An A319 crew departed a foreign airport after a two hour delay and a flight plan change which resulted in the FMC dropping the departure airport and flight plan. Because the performance pages were not rebuilt the V-speed and flex power did not set with the TOGA selection; but the crew continued the takeoff.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TME.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E I90
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Local flight to IWS Airport. I understand there is a new tower located at TME; Houston Executive Airport; (nearby West Houston). During my departure and return flight path; aimed to maintain more than 4 nm from the airport to avoid the tower service area. Because it is not currently depicted on sectionals or GPS units; it is difficult to know for sure if I adequately avoided the service area for the new tower. On the return leg to West Houston; I believe I maintained at least 5 to 6 miles from the TME; while at 1800 feet; but I was primarily focused on my arrival to West Houston. It would be much easier to confirm adequate clearance if the tower service area was depicted on sectional charts and/or GPS units.




Synopsis: C240 pilot reports that TME has a new Tower but no Class D ring on VFR Sectionals or IFR Airways charts; and thus not depicted on GPS; making avoidance more challenging.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MKE.TRACON, WI
Aircraft: PA-34-200 Seneca I
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON MKE
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ATW has a final approach course for the ILS Runway 3 that rests primarily in our airspace; instead of Green Bay's; so we routinely take point outs for aircraft that they are vectoring to the ILS 3 final approach course.  GRB Approach pointed out an aircraft that was descending out of 12;000 feet about 30 miles East of ATW descending for the final approach to Runway 3. We have a LOA with GRB stating that these aircraft are only allowed to descend to 4;000 feet until they are clear of OSH Tower's airspace. I had a GRB arrival who was about 20 miles South of ATW at 5;000 feet when GRB called for the point out. I started to say; 'Traffic is' and the GRB Controller cuts in and said; 'PA-34?' (who is flashing already in hand off transfer to GRB) I said 'yes' and the GRB Controller said; 'I'll miss him.'  These 2 aircraft were almost 50 miles apart at the time of the point out. I observed GRB descending and vectoring the point out aircraft closer to the final for the ILS 3. I then observed their aircraft descending to 5;000 feet and basically on a collision course with PA-34. I turned PA-34 to a 340 heading to start a turn away from the aircraft. I had no idea what that aircraft was doing so I didn't know exactly what to do. I called GRB and asked them what they were doing with the point out aircraft as PA-34 was right there. I asked if they were descending him further and there was no answer on the land line. I hung up and climbed the PA-34 to 6;000 feet. I waited until I saw the point out aircraft at 4;000 feet then I descended PA-34 back down to 5;000 feet. I told our Supervisor that I was pretty sure GRB just had a loss of separation. Recommendation; GRB should hand off these arrivals to us and we should be working them as they are in our airspace.




Synopsis: MKE Controller described a probable loss of separation event involving GRB's vectors of a Runway 3 ILS arrival.  The reporter suggested these aircraft should be worked by MKE because of the airspace configurations.