elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Special Use NY SFRA
ATC / advisory: CTAF HUDSON
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was flying Southbound down the Hudson River Exclusion Zone (I am familiar with the SFRA Rules and have taken the course online) reporting my location on 123.05. Just before I was about to report 'Hudson River Southbound Piper 1000 ft VZ' Newark Tower came on the channel and called out for Fixed Wing [aircraft] at the VZ. I responded with my tail number and confirmed my location. The tower said I was at 1500 ft and violating Class Bravo Airspace. I replied that my altimeter was set properly and was reporting 1000 ft and in addition that altitude from Stratus/Foreflight was reporting 1000ft as well. Tower replied with altimeter setting which I already had set correctly and I did not hear back from the tower. I continued my flight under VFR through the SFRA. I am confident that I was not in violation of the Class Bravo Airspace. Once entering McGuire airspace I climbed to 2000 ft level and called them for a Mode C check. At 2000 ft level with proper altimeter setting (confirmed with Stratus data) McGuire reported me at 2400 ft. Later when I returned to the airport I was able to upload the data recorded which confirmed my altitude was 1050 ft at the time the EWR tower contacted me. I will be having a pitot/static checked to see what the issue with the transponder reporting the wrong altitude.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small aircraft reported that during operation in the Hudson River Exclusion Zone Newark Tower reported an airspace violation. The aircraft altimeter was reported to be reading on planned altitude; but the transponder or encoder was providing an inaccurate altitude signal.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Near top of climb we had an intermittent ENG 1 OIL LO PR Amber Caution message which became a steady RED Warning message. I performed the ECAM (Electronic Centralized Aircraft Monitor) actions and follow up for the message which included shutting down the engine. The Captain [advised ATC]. We landed without further incident.I don't know what caused the indication but we had multiple indications which led us to believe it was not an erroneous indication and resulted ultimately in the engine shutdown per the ECAM.I believe it was a mechanical issue but I was unable to find a clear procedure for what to do for an intermittent (or even steady) ENG 1 OIL LO PR Amber Caution message with other supporting indications. Having a discussion in training about unusual/non standard situations would be helpful insight. ATC was very accommodating and we found it helpful to have ATC provide us a separate frequency to communicate with Tower and ARFF (Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting) simultaneously. ARFF was very responsive and communication was excellent. It was a seamless process on final approach with our requests.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Flight Crew flying A-321 aircraft reported low engine oil pressure inflight.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: P50.TRACON, AZ
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B P50
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: Light Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We were [doing] a procedure where we land as many aircraft as possible on Runway 26 to help out the tower from having to stop departures and cross the departure runway for aircraft that land Runway 25L. This wasn't a causal factor. I had Aircraft X on a northbound heading; assigned 040. As he was descending through 050; I noticed a target that appeared to have departed southbound; climbing out of 032. I instructed Aircraft X to stop his descent and issued the traffic. The unidentified aircraft's flight path would take him just to Aircraft X's left side. Aircraft X stopped at 045 and was looking for the traffic. At this point; the aircraft continued a climb and Aircraft X responded to a TCAS RA. No separation was lost; and the unidentified aircraft stopped the climb at 038. Aircraft X advised he was climbing. There was another aircraft that the other final had; Aircraft Y; that was going to land on the south side. I was going to go under Aircraft Y with Aircraft X; he was going to stay on top. I gave Aircraft X the traffic and he advised me that he would stop at 050; and thanked me for the traffic. Both aircraft landed without further incident.This happens all the time. Aircraft depart FFZ and skirt the Bravo; which goes down to 040. Given the proximity to PHX; it's imperative to get those [inbound aircraft] down so they can make the descent to land at the airport. We need a new Bravo layout. This happens way too many times. The Bravo needs to be changed and hopefully [reporting] will be the vehicle for which it is intended.




Synopsis: Phoenix TRACON Controller reported problems with the Phoenix Class Bravo and VFR aircraft close to it which causes arrival problems.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending on the GIBBZ3 we were assigned by ATC to cross and maintain 6;000 ft. at GIBBZ but while leveling off at 6;000 ft. we encountered wake from another aircraft and the autopilot continued descending through 6;000 ft. and I caught it and stopped it. The Captain stated he would write it up with Maintenance for being a faulty autopilot. Also moments later while on the GIBBZ3 arrival over SUNYJ while initially setup for Runway 19C; we were told to switch to Runway 19R (the overflow runway) as the Controller indicated it would be much faster for us. While setting up the FMS for Runway 19R the Captain stated that our FMS briefly 'blacked out' on him which left us briefly in HDG Mode; as opposed to (FMS Mode) following the depicted track on the GIBBZ3 arrival to UDIYU and MATTC. The Controller vectored us back onto the arrival with two headings and we agreed it would be best fill out a report for what appeared to be a faulty FMS and faulty autopilot.




Synopsis: CRJ700 First Officer reported that an FMS malfunction resulted in an altitude and course deviation.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: PDC indicated route change -FMG7 FMG J92 YERIN - at bottom of PDC verbiage listed 'CLEARED RENO7 DEP J92 YERIN.' Loaded and flew FMG7. During climbout received an RA. Norcal queried us as to which departure we were given. We responded FMG7. No further comments from Norcal other than altitude assignments and headings.Confusion on PDC as to correct departure.Bad way to list PDC information.


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


Synopsis: The flight crew reported misreading a route clearance due to the placement of the revised routing on the PDC. This confusion resulted in a route deviation and subsequent RA event.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01; Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to descent to DEN; expected Runway 35L due to construction and low arrival demand. We briefed the Descent; Approach; and Windshear Procedures; due to Windshear Advisories. On initial contact with Approach Control; told to expect 35L. On Downwind; 210 knots assigned; just prior to BARK; controller told us to expect 35R. Both pilots turn to the iPad to get 35R charts. I started an 'Active Briefing' for ILS 35R backup. As I was setting ILS freq we were assigned heading 260. Rolling out on Base Leg we were asked to report 'Airport in sight.' We reported the Field in sight and the controller assigned us 'Heading 320; Maintain 180 knots.' The First Officer asked if I wanted him to extend the Course to the Final Approach Fix. I told him 'yes' and he extended the FAF. As I turned to the intercept heading; I cross-checked the Nav Display and saw the intercept heading was inside the FAF; but would put us in front of other traffic on Final. The controller then told us to maintain 170 knots until 5 DME and cleared us for the Visual Runway 35R. At that point; I realized that we were going through the Final course to 35R and that the FMC was still programmed for 35L. We made the turn to 35R without conflicting with traffic for 35L. Because we had been turning and descending From a 210 knot downwind; however; we were still at very high speed; and were barely within the Stabilized Approach criteria at 500 feet. This 'Slam Dunk' was not set up to give spacing to traffic landing behind us; but rather to close spacing with traffic ahead of us. That could have led to an approach to the wrong runway; conflict with traffic on a parallel approach; or an unstabilized approach. Given that Windshear Advisories were also in effect; I consider that type of pushing to get us in fast to be an invitation for disaster. Finally; I would like to add that the Tower Controller was making a lot of comments about what airplanes were doing and the pace that they were following his instructions. I'm sure that his comments were annoying to everyone who was on frequency; and outright distracting for a crew that just got slam dunked.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that on approach to DEN while on downwind they were given a runway change and a short turn to final which resulted in an overshoot and an unstabilized approach.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BUR.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: Tower BUR
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Inside Budde on approach into BUR for Runway 8. At 2;400 feet; Tower called Traffic below us 3 o'clock. We saw the traffic on box at 3 moving toward 4 o'clock at 400-500 feet below. Got Aural warning RA to climb. Told Tower about the RA. We saw we were clear of conflict and safe and stable to continue. Target was now at 5 o'clock behind. Tower asked if we need to do a go-around or OK to continue. We advised OK to continue. Lessons: Keep awareness sharp when traffic calls from ATC or on box; especially around VNY area. There are many GA targets in this traffic pattern so this is an ongoing threat to us.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving an RA alert during initial approach to BUR airport.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Ops delayed flight without Dispatch contact. On time critical flight. Flight was noted as an on time critical flight with the instruction to contact Dispatch if a delay is imminent.




Synopsis: Crew reported that Dispatch was not notified of an aircraft delay.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working ZMP Sector 42. Denver Center Sector 09 handed off aircraft X and aircraft Y to me at the same altitude on converging courses. The back aircraft was over 30 knots faster than the front aircraft. I had to turn the back aircraft twenty degrees to the left inside of Denver Center's airspace in order to prevent the loss of separation which would have occurred less than 10 miles within my boundary. I received no call from Denver Center that they were going to fix the issue prior to shipping the aircraft to me. I believe if I had not turned the back aircraft we would have had a loss of separation. Denver Center should have had this fixed before they entered my airspace.We get a lot of this from Denver Center. This was the first of 2 incidents that happened in the same day where they hand us unsafe situations. Denver Center need to ensure separation of the aircraft they send to the next sector. This is nearly a daily occurrence with Denver Center.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reported that Denver Center gave him two aircraft with the second one being faster. Receiving Controller had to turn aircraft 20 degrees left to avoid operational error; but did so inside Denver's airspace without coordination.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
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: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were instructed] to change the FMS to reflect hard altitudes on the new MEM RNAV STARS; we did just that and changed the 'at or below FL230' at JYSON to a hard altitude of FL230 while descending into MEM on the MONAA RNAV STAR for Runway 27. Approximately 10 miles from JYSON we realized that we weren't going to make the restriction at MONAA of at or below 10;000 FT and 250 KTS. If we hadn't changed JYSON to a hard altitude; we would have made the restriction. We started our descent and told ATC that we may not make the speed at MONAA. We were told to try to make the altitude before the speed. Crossing MONAA we were approximately 290 KTS instead of 250. Approach handed us off and told us to tell the next Controller our speed. We did and the next Controller gave us a pilot discretion descent to 4;000 FT; with speed at our discretion.I don't think we should ever change at or below altitudes on the FMS [line selectable procedures] to hard altitudes. You may make the first restriction; but will you make the next one? This was my first time flying this arrival. I was the pilot not flying; I should have realized sooner that the distance between JYSON and MONAA is only 16 miles. Consider changing the 'at or below' altitude at JYSON to something more like 15;000 FT; instead of FL230. Unfortunately it was our mistake; and it was a stupid one.




Synopsis: After the flight crew was cleared for the MONAA RNAV STAR to MEM; they reprogrammed the 'at or below FL230' at JYSON to 'at FL230/' As they approached JYSON they realized they would be unable to comply with the 'between 6;000 and 10;000 FT at 250 KTS' restriction at MONAA only 16 NM beyond JYSON.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Electrical system failure; suspected alternator or alternator belt resulted in loss of Number 1 Nav/Com and subsequent loss of all electric avionics and instruments. [I] was able to Squawk 7600 and confirm with ATC Center; but could only receive and not transmit due to Number 2 Nav/Com insufficient power to transmit. [I] did [a] 180 degree turn and proceeded back to ZZZ origination airport in VMC using handheld GPS for navigation. Contact via phone Approach and subsequently Tower and obtained clearance for a low approach to RWY XX at ZZZ to verify manual gear extension and then flew a successful no-flap landing. Spoke with Tower via phone after landing and confirmed no need for further action or reporting.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported an electrical system failure led to a return to the departure airport.