elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: HCF.TRACON, HI
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E HCF
ATC / advisory: TRACON HCF
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working R2. There was another controller working D2. He told me that there were two planes that would be departing LIH. Aircraft X departed and I told him radar contact. Then; Aircraft Y departed; and I radared them as well. I noticed that the heading that Aircraft Y was on seemed kind of close behind the Aircraft X; but I assumed that he was still making the turn. I watched it for a little bit more and realized that Aircraft Y was not turning any further away from Aircraft X. I looked over at the strips and saw that the D side had departed Aircraft X on a 030 heading and Aircraft Y on a 065 heading. There was only 35 degrees divergence instead of the required 45 degrees. The D side needs to be more careful. I will try my best to double check the D side's work.




Synopsis: HCF Controller describes a situation where two aircraft depart LIH and are not separated by 45 degrees or more; leading to a loss of separation.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the MNZNO RNAV SID out of ABQ. The departure has a crossing restriction of Maximum 230 KTS; at or below 9;000 FT at YUGLU and; 8.2 NM later at MNZNO; maximum 250 KTS at 11;500 or above. While leveling off at the 9;000 FT hold down; the aircraft switched from 'VNAV' to 'altitude hold' mode and both the pilot flying and pilot not flying failed to recognize the change. As the pilot flying; I was hand flying the aircraft and was task saturated. I thought we should be climbing but the flight directors were commanding level flight. The Captain had selected 11;500 in the MCP but; due to the mode change; the flight directors were not commanding a climb. About the time we realized the mistake; ATC gave us a heading of 190 and climb to FL200. The ATC clearance came about three miles prior to MNZNO [with us still] at 250 KIAS and 9;000.In retrospect; I would have been better off to utilize the autopilot as opposed to hand flying. The departure is fairly involved with multiple turns and altitude requirements. My normal course of action is to hand fly through 10;000 FT before engaging the autopilot. Had I engaged the autopilot; I believe my situational awareness would have been better and I'd have caught the inadvertent mode change quicker. Additionally; I would submit that these departures are a little different from what we normally see. They're unique in that the altitudes are listed in the verbiage with the route. On most of the commercially provided SIDs; the route is listed at the bottom of the page (in the text portion) and then there is an altitude listed in a separate block. There is no altitude block on the MNZNO and the required altitude is listed in with the text. For standardization purposes the Charts should adopt one method to avoid confusion and potential altitude deviations.




Synopsis: A B737 flight crew failed to comply with the crossing restriction departing ABQ on the MNZNO RNAV SID. Task saturation by the hand flying pilot flying and failure of the pilot not flying to reengage VNAV after complying with restrictions at YUGLU were cited as major contributing factors.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I.T. called SOC (System Operations Control) manager and told him the computers were running into an issue with memory or RAM and would need to be restarted in order to prevent them [from] shutting down. It was coordinated with dispatch in order to cause minimal impact to flights. We were told the interruption would only be 1-2 minutes. However; it ended up lasting 3 hours. Dispatch was unable to use dispatch computer tools for 3 hours while I.T. performed several restarts and attempted to get the system running again. While the computers were down; I had at least 5 flights in the air and had any of them had been assigned a reroute from ATC (not unlikely due to a line of thunderstorms all my flights were navigating around at the time) or gone into holding or needed an alternate changed; I would have been unable to perform the functions. THIS IS A MAJOR SAFETY ISSUE!Also; we did not receive updated weather information for approximately 4 hours. And weather was not attaching to flight plans. In addition; our web was not working and flight plans were not retrievable. Flights in the morning departed late due to dispatch not being able to plan any flights or send any paperwork. All flights in the air and waiting to depart were affected.I forwarded this information via email to SOC manager who simply said 'The IT issues should have not actually been an issue; but procedural steps are being put in place to help manage those restart processes' Management's response to this problem is almost as scary as the problem itself. They clearly do not care or take any of these computer issues seriously. This is the 2nd MAJOR computer issue/shutdown I have personally had in under 1 month. This poses a serious risk to safety...whether management thinks it should be a problem or not; IT IS A PROBLEM and it needs to be fixed.I suggest you SPEND MONEY to upgrade the computers and the server so we are not running at 97% forcing a restart while the operation is in progress and flights are in the air.




Synopsis: A Dispatcher reported computer maintenance required dispatch center's computers to be restarted for a memory issue. The interruption lasted 3 hours with no method of controlling aircraft.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Syst Reservoir Tank
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action; General Release Refused / Aircraft Not Accepted; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Logbook Entry; MEL; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Aircraft X has been flying around with chronic hydraulic fluid transfer between system A and B for months. I refused the aircraft due to mis application of MEL 29-XX. It turns out I was correct about the part replaced due to this incorrect MEL. It was not the problem. The part was the system a fluid level sensor. This aircraft has been and continues to fly in revenue service in an unairworthy condition. This aircraft needs to be grounded and positive corrective action taken. By [Maintenance Control] admission; this is a long-time recurring issue. The [maintenance log] as well shows a 'deferral' for 28 days as of today. It's actually been longer than that by my observation. In summation if the above is not sufficient to ground this aircraft; there is no MEL relief for hydraulic fluid transfer between sys A and B and [Maintenance Control] admits this is a 'deferral '. An illegal deferral. This recurring over full condition is also unsafe and violates the placard on the hydraulic fluid reservoirs.




Synopsis: Captain reported refusing aircraft opn multiple occasions because of misapplied MEL and incorrect maintenance procedures.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying the VOR ZZZ into ZZZ. Upon Final Approach fix inbound (about 3 miles east of the airport); Aircraft X was on a relatively short final to Runway XX. Aircraft X asked what our intentions were and I informed them over the CTAF we were planning on circling to land Runway XX. Our circle to land consisted of us crossing midfield and join a left downwind; base; and final for Runway XX. I decided that we had enough separation to continue the approach as Airplane X landed on Runway XX. However; upon reviewing my decisions I realize that our continuation of the approach made it difficult for Aircraft X to go missed/do a go around had they needed too. In the future; I will plan enough space on my practice approaches to allow preceding aircraft to have the option to go around and not force another aircraft to only have one option of landing. While there was no immediate collision hazard that occurred; had the pilot of Aircraft X needed to go-around a collision hazard may have been present.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported that while conducting a circle-to-land maneuver; there was not adequate spacing from a landing aircraft to allow a go-around if necessary.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 400
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing Roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I [was approaching] the airport at 7;700 feet MSL. I asked for a lower altitude which the controller could not give me. I had the airport in sight and so I canceled IFR. I made the approach and was a little fast (100 KTS instead of 90 KTS). I touched down on both mains and the wheels shuddered. The plane began to oscillate and the PFD and MFD shut down for a few seconds. The brakes did not work and we began to roll. I tried to go around; but I already overran the runway. The plane came to a stop in a creek beyond the runway. The plane was not damaged badly.




Synopsis: Cessna 400 pilot reported running off the end of the runway after an apparent brake failure.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 6N5.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: CTAF 6N5
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While in a 'hold pattern' over the East River Exclusion at 1;000 FT we were south of the 6N5 heliport and just cleared to land. While turning and starting our descent to land there was a seaplane noticed at our 6 o'clock position about 200 FT lower than our altitude and the aircraft did not announce his position. I contacted LGA Tower Manager and informed him of this as well as 6N5 Manager and seaplane base 6N7. Possibly post a NOTAM for seaplane operators to adhere to their SOP for takeoff and landing in tight airspace and the requirement to transmit position within that corridor.




Synopsis: Helicopter First Officer landing at 6N5 reports an NMAC with a seaplane; not communicating his position and operating in the East River Exclusion.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSP.Airport, MN
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Operations delayed flight without contacting Dispatch. Flight is on time critical; is labeled so in [system] with a request that Dispatch be contacted if a delay is imminent; and was delayed 150 minutes. We were working with [Operations] to get the EDCT (Estimated Departure Clearance Time) moved up.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported being out of the loop when an aircraft was delayed and no one advised the Dispatcher.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SJU.Airport, PR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SJU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: After landing and clearing Runway 8; Ground Control directed us to taxi via Taxiway N. The Jeppesen 10-9 page for SJU clearly states that aircraft with wingspan greater than 160 feet are prohibited from using this Taxiway. We stated our intentions to follow the printed restrictions but Ground continued to direct us to use Taxiway N. After several minutes at a stalemate I agreed to use Taxiway N only if our wingspan clearance could be assured. Ground dispatched a vehicle to ensure obstacle clearance. If I don't follow printed instructions; who is to blame and responsible for accident or incident??The SJU Jeppesen 10-9 page is not in agreement with current local practices. Due to traffic and taxiway maintenance at the time;  Ground would not provide alternative taxi routing. Update the publications.




Synopsis: Widebody cargo aircraft Captain reported they were asked to use Taxiway N at SJU. This taxiway prohibits aircraft with a wingspan greater than 160 feet from using it.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FRG.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower FRG
Aircraft component: Angle of Attack Vane
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Tested pusher system on the ground and it tested fine.  Rotated at 80 knots and about 3 seconds later/30 to 40 feet above the ground the shaker system activated and we noticed the AOA indication was very active (going full fast to full slow at odd intervals and there was not much wind).  At this point the First Officer was flying from the right seat and she kept the pusher interrupt switch activated and we made right traffic to come back around to land.  Once we were on downwind the First Officer handed the plane over to me.  At this point the shaker is still going off.  It stopped for 1-2 seconds and would return (it did that about 3 times).  The pusher CAWS kept coming and going on its own throughout the rest of the flight as well.  I continued flying with the pusher interrupt switched activated.  We landed with the shaker going off with no further problems.  Also noticed yesterday that the pusher CAWS activated in flight for about 1 second but cleared itself. All ground pusher tests have been successful.




Synopsis: PC-12 Captain reported stick shaker activation just after takeoff possibly related to AOA anomalies.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ASE
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Company Policy; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were set up to do the visual approach and circle to runway 33; as Aspen was reporting gusty winds out of the north. I descended through 15000 feet and fully configured the plane for the approach. We were still a bit high on the crossing altitudes on the LOC app that we had up for guidance. I did some maneuvering in an effort to get down. I had the terrain in sight the whole way down. As we neared the fix RAFTR; the terrain GPWS warning went off. We immediately went missed approach and the tower told us to track the Loc 15 missed approach course. We climbed out of the valley and away from the terrain. We ended up getting vectored around for another visual approach and circle to runway 33. We completed the second approach and landing without further incident. I think my descent rate (closure rate) towards the terrain is what set off the warning. I thought I was going to be further south of the terrain that RAFTR is on top of. In the future; I will be more mindful of my descent rates around terrain. This was a good reminder of how a day vmc approach can go wrong. The go around was the correct course of action.


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


Synopsis: An aircraft on a visual approach circling to land ASE Runway 33 in gusty conditions and high on approach developed an excessive rate of descent which triggered the EGPWS TERRAIN PULL UP alert. A go-around was executed followed by a second successful visual circle to land Runway 33.