elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RJJJ.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center RJJJ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Arriving into Tokyo Narita airspace; for the second trip in a row; received inadequate holding instructions for a holding pattern not depicted on any source available to the crew. While enroute; instructed to 'hold east of NORMA.' We received no altitude; direction of turn; inbound or outbound course; EFC (Expected Further Clearance); or any expected instructions to define what they actually wanted; except for us to start some pattern. After frantically looking for any pattern anywhere; iPad (electronic flight bag); paper enroute charts; STARS; etc; finally had to ask for more specific instructions and clearance input. We were met with 'standby' by a controller who gave no appearance of knowing why we were asking. This was all within minutes of arriving at the fix. Every aircraft receiving this clearance while we were up on frequency had similar problems. Last time they just changed our holding fix multiple times until they picked one that had something published somewhere; so they could avoid providing the proper information verbally. This time they gave us verbal holding instruction; piecemeal; after each item was specifically requested one at a time.




Synopsis: B747 First Officer arriving RJAA reports being instructed to hold east of NORMA with no other information. The crew cannot find a depicted holding pattern at NORMA and must ask ATC for the necessary information during multiple calls.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D FFZ
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Was doing touch and go's on runway 4L. Told ATC that we were going to be a full stop landing and were told to extend the downwind and contact tower [on a different frequency]. We contacted tower and they told us to turn base and that we were cleared to land on 4R. While we were turning base; I looked up and saw Aircraft Y about 100 feet above us and probably about 100 feet horizontal distance. The tower was asking 'Aircraft Y do you have traffic in sight' and getting no response. Aircraft Y continued to fly above us on base and turned final on top of use while continuing to ignore tower's calls. I told tower while we were on base 'There is Aircraft Y flying right above us'; their response was to ask Aircraft Y if they had traffic in sight. Near the end of our base leg; while we were turning final tower asked us if we were on downwind still. I responded that we were on base and they told the Aircraft Y to climb to 3;000 feet and overfly the runway.[Company of Aircraft Y] is a danger to the skies and too many of these incidents happen on a daily occurrence. They need to be looked into due to the disregard of English proficiency which comes into play for many of these incidents.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported NMAC in FFZ pattern with unresponsive aircraft. Pilot reported this as a common occurrence in the area especially due to lack of English proficiency.
Date: 202007
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification

Narrative: [Oceanic] Flight to ZZZ. At approximately ZZZZZ intersection just past equal time point between [departure] and ZZZ I was informed that a passenger was ill. Flight attendants surveyed passengers and enlisted the help of a registered nurse passenger; I approved release of the primary medical kit and first response kit and an initial assessment was accomplished. Assessment was relayed to me and Medlink patch via SATCOM with dispatch was accomplished. Medlink MD and on scene RN were in agreement that the passenger with previous history of Type 1 diabetes was suffering from diabetic collapse due to lack of insulin beginning with initial flight from [the previous leg] and then on to ZZZ. Blood sugar was measured in excess of 360 with chest pains. Medlink advised that the passenger needed emergency room treatment as soon as possible. We advised Oceanic and they provided present position; now approaching the ADIZ; direct to ZZZ. EMT response was coordinated to meet the aircraft upon arrival. ARTCC and TRACON provided priority handling with radar vectors and runway assignment to the ILS Runway XXL to ZZZ. A normal approach and landing was accomplished; ZZZ tower allowed us to rollout to taxiway [1] for quicker access to arrival gate. Upon arrival at gate the passengers remained seated as the EMTs entered the aircraft and took custody of the ill passenger. Passenger required EMT assistance to leave aircraft. Passengers then normally deplaned. ATC priority handling was direct routings/vectors and preferential runway assignment. They did offer 'speed at our discretion' but no speed FARs were exceeded. Due to time of day and light traffic our impact on other aircraft was minimal. Conducted debrief with full crew to resolve any questions and to ascertain any possible improvements in our own process and CRM. Aircraft maintenance was also debriefed about write ups related to use of medical kit and oxygen bottle/mask.




Synopsis: An Air carrier pilot reported an ill passenger. All coordination and service was accomplished appropriately.
Date: 202009
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Got too low flaps warning on short final. Flap indicator showed Flaps 25. Flap handle was in landing flaps position. Recycled to no effect. Airspeed was below max flap speed. Aircraft was on safe path and speed for landing. Considered go-around with First Officer but concluded the safest action since all other parameters we stable; was to continue. We continued the approach and landed normally in touchdown zone with normal rollout without event. Flaps operated properly on ground.




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported receiving a Too Low Flaps warning on short final and an incorrect flap setting indication but landed safely with no issues.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IND.TRACON, IN
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 45
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C IND
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was conducting OJT on Departure Control. My trainee had released a C172 and that aircraft wanted vectors for an approach. Shortly after the C172 was airborne the Supervisor told us to combine a satellite sector up with us at Departure Radar. During the briefing the Satellite Controller being relieved told us they had released a Lear Jet on a 180 heading. I told my trainee that when IND is on a Runway 5 operation it would be much easier to take his C172 south initially and go over the top of IND. Not only would it be easier but what potentially would be our C172 going northeast bound; our LJ45 was coming right at us south bound all the while IND Tower departing Runway 5 east bound. This meant we had three airports all launching our aircraft into the same geographical area climbing to 3;000 FT or 5;000 FT. I told him it was the triangle of death and to take his C172 south. The trainee proceeded to 'justify' why he thought a northeast heading would be better. It would expedite the C172's request for the approach into EYE; etc. I allowed the trainee to do it his way. The LJ45 came off on a 180 heading; and really 'dogged' the departure procedure turn. My trainee climbed his C172 to 4;000 FT and issued a turn left heading 340. This is when I keyed up and immediately told the C172 to fly heading 270 for traffic and told the LJ45 who had begun his slow turn to a 180 heading to continue the left turn heading 090 and stop their climb at 3;000 FT. I issued traffic but the weather was marginal VFR with PIREPs of overcast ceilings 1;700 to 2;400 FT. We just had two different controllers releasing aircraft right at each other 15 miles apart without any coordination. 99.9% of the time this isn't an issue but raises an interesting question what if both departures go NORDO and their releases cause a conflict with each other.




Synopsis: IND TRACON Controller reported that a trainee ignored their instructions; resulting in aircraft on conflicting headings.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
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
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flaps 25 takeoff caused things to happen quicker than we are used to seeing. Flap retraction altitude and clean-up speeds came fast and caught us off guard. During the flap retraction; the airspeed increased above the 200 knots for under the Class B airspace. The airspeed got to about 230 knots and we got a 'Don't sink' warning. [We] corrected immediately. We were only above that airspeed for a few seconds.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported airspeed and vertical speed issues related to a flaps 25 takeoff.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ACV.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ACV
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: [I] landed in IFR conditions low visibility at an unfamiliar airport; ACV. Landed after ILS Runway 32. [I] taxied back and went on the red restricted area. I was looking for the FBO and noticed I taxied on [the restricted area] so I turned off of it then stopped to look at where I needed to go to drop the 2 passengers off. Then a passenger got out so I told him to wait we were not in the right spot so he got back in and I taxied to the right area. It was a restricted area for airline flights only at an un-towered field and no airlines were there so I didn't notice with the low visibility until I was in the red area. But as soon as I saw it I went out. [I] probably taxied 20 feet into it. The airport diagram on the charts didn't show the restricted area so that would be helpful. I printed out an airport diagram also but it just showed taxiways and runway not the restricted area either. The Airport FD did say there was an airline service working out of there so I should have paid more attention to that but still never mentioned a restricted area. I could maybe look in the flight guide that would have showed me the exact spot to go for the FBO instead of looking out in low visibility trying to see it.




Synopsis: After landing at ACV in low visibility; the pilot taxied into the ramp area reserved for air carrier aircraft before realizing where he was. There are no publications or charts indicating the red hash mark area restrictions.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the MSCOT arrival at the turn onto the downwind leg at DOMNO the autopilot failed to turn; reverting into roll mode. The crew was watching; waiting for the turn and was able to use HDG mode to initiate the turn with minimal lateral deviation. ATC was immediately informed; however they were unconcerned. ATC queried the flight crew if they were operating an older model aircraft with a single FMS unit; which was a correct assumption. ATC further indicated that missing that specific turn was a common occurrence; particularly with that type of avionics configuration. No separation conflict was noted. Prior to reaching that point of the arrival; both members of the flight crew had reviewed the arrival in the FMS; and found no discontinuities; or 'ghost' fixes outlined in tech briefs.The autopilot failed to make a turn on the arrival; presumably due to a problem with the FMS database.

Callback: The Reporter does not know why these anomalies are happening. His Company is aware of them and he believed that the issue has been addressed with the FMS manufacturer. He does know that single FMS aircraft has this issue whereas dual FMS equipped aircraft do not.



Synopsis: A single FMS EMB-145 with the autopilot engaged flying the MSCOT 2 RNAV failed to make the turn at DOMNO and transitioned to the ROLL Mode. ATC was aware of the issue as the crew used the HEADING Mode to fly the arrival.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: VIS.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 1.75
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E VIS
ATC / advisory: CTAF VIS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed and received flight following VFR to Visalia. Approximately 10 miles from Visalia; flight following was terminated and I received the latest weather from Visalia. Visibility was reported 1 3/4 mile. I was confused with class G airspace and thought VFR visibility requirements were 1 mile; so I assumed I was clear to begin my approach. I made calls on the CTAF of 10 miles; 5 miles out and 2 miles out hearing nothing back from local traffic. Once I announced I was overflying the field and entering on a right crosswind for runway 30; a pilot on the ground informed me that the 'field was IFR and that I was holding things up; but go ahead and land anyway.' I did not know if this pilot's statements were true and did not want to engage in any argument in such a critical phase of flight. I was also a bit shaken up by the aggressiveness of this pilot's tone and just wanted to get on the ground and out of his way. I had good visibility; so I continued the approach and landed safely. After landing; the pilot informed me that Fresno approach wanted to talk to me and gave me a phone number.I have since checked airspace visibility requirements and verified that 3 SM is required in Class E airspace; which is active in Visalia 1400-0800Z. I also wrongly assumed that ForeFlight; which was telling me 'Marginal VFR' at Visalia; was aware of visibility requirements. I am aware of the deviation and have learned an important lesson about visibility requirements.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported landing visually at VIS with visibility reported as 1 and 3/4 miles and is informed by a pilot on the ground that the field is IFR.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Climbing out at about 4;000 FT AGL on First Officer's leg we noticed a Tail Compartment Temp HI light on the annunciator panel. We performed the Immediate Action items and then proceeded with the completion of the QRH procedure. The light extinguished after 4-5 minutes after completing the immediate action items. The First Officer continued to fly while we simultaneously declared an emergency with ATC; and asked for immediate vectors to return to [departure airport]. I contacted the flight attendants; informed them of our situation; and then made a short PA to the passengers to make them aware that everything was under control. We contacted Operations to notify them of our return so that they could coordinate the assistance we would need upon arrival. We asked for the ARFF vehicles to stand by for our overweight landing of 138;900 LBS in case of hot brakes and/or tail compartment heat problems.The landing was uneventful and we touched down lightly at about 300 FPM with 40 degrees flaps and used Med Auto Brakes. OFF to ON time totaled 12 minutes. The ARFF vehicles inspected us from outside and then followed us to the gate area as a precautionary measure. Contacted Dispatch and submitted the overweight landing information. The brake temperature reached approximately 350 degrees but Maintenance had blowers on them immediately upon reaching the gate by our request.Tail compartment temperatures are an ongoing problem on the MD80 at such high ambient temperatures [at departure airport]. It would probably be prudent not to schedule MD80's into [this airport] during the summer with such high ramp temperatures; or at least have the ground crew implement a procedure that blows cool air into the tailcone area while at the gate and/or time the raising of the aft stairs to minimize heat build-up during the ground time at the gate. With the new procedures in the QRH that requires a landing at the nearest suitable airport; this problem will likely reoccur if we continue to do things the same way.




Synopsis: MD-82 Captain reported a Tail Compartment HI warning after takeoff from a warm-weather airport. In accordance with procedure; an emergency was declared and the flight returned to departure airport.