elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOI.TRACON, ID
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Departure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ZLC sector 31 (the sector to the east of Boise) handed me off Aircraft X on the SPUUD arrival. I deleted the speed restrictions on the arrival because I did not feel that they were necessary. ARN (Boise North Radar) had Aircraft Y outbound direct to ROARR on the ADR as required in our SOP with ZLC. ARN didn't have anyone else to separate Aircraft Y from so they transferred control of Aircraft Y to ZLC sector 31. Upon initial contact with ZLC; they turned Aircraft Y to some fix further down south on their flight plan which put Aircraft Y in direct conflict with my Aircraft X. The north controller recognized this right away and told me about it. I immediately stopped Aircraft X at 140 since I assumed that ZLC would see the mistake and stop Aircraft Y below my traffic; but I became immediately aware that ZLC wasn't stopping their traffic so I issued a turn to Aircraft X. I told Aircraft X to turn 'right immediately heading three six zero.' I then gave traffic to Aircraft X on Aircraft Y and they came back with traffic in sight and I issued to them to maintain visual separation. I'm not sure what separation at that point was; but it was very close to the legal limit.I then called ZLC and asked what they were doing with Aircraft Y and he said 'I have control of turns to 40 degrees when you transfer them to me.' I said; 'that doesn't mean that you can turn them directly into the traffic you handed me.' He then said; 'well; then you shouldn't have shipped them to me.' Frustrated and angered; I hung up the landline to issue more control instructions to Aircraft X and then I called ZLC back and asked for the controller's operating initials.This was an EXTREMELY unsafe operation and I would infer that the controller at ZLC intentionally put these aircraft and hundreds of lives at risk.If ZLC is going to have control for turns and not be cognizant of other aircraft that they are obviously aware of then I recommend we revoke giving them control of turns of 40 degrees or less upon initial contact.


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


Synopsis: BOI Departure Controller observed a ZLC Center Controller turn an aircraft they had given them into arrival traffic in the adjacent sector.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Loss of electrical power (alternator; then eventually battery) while enroute from ZZZ to ZZZ1; while on flight following. Loss of power to GNS530w resulted in lost comms; squawked 7600 and continued VFR to a suitable repair facility (ZZZ3) and used a handheld radio to enter the ZZZ3 Class D and land.Mechanics determined an alternator terminal had become loose and the wires fatigued then broke at the terminal.




Synopsis: Pilot reported loss of electrical power and having to land while NORDO.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Taxiing to runway; at night in a poorly lit GA [General Aviation] airport after days of rain; I looked away from centerline for a second. Looking back to centerline; I noticed I was right and began correcting when the right main vacated the taxiway and pulled the airplane more to the right and lodged itself; right main and nose gear in the very soggy sod. I shut down the engines; secured the aircraft; and went outside to access that the aircraft is stuck and unable to free itself; being lodged in the saturated sod. We unloaded the passengers and luggage and secured the airplane for further assessment. Poorly lit airport and no centerline taxiway lighting coupled with wet windshield resulting in very limited visibility. Keep both pilots eyes up in and out at all times to monitor with caution.


Second narrative: As the Captain was taxiing to the runway; he failed to maintain the centerline; which caused the right main tire to go into the mud. This caused the airplane to become stuck which pulled the nose wheel into the mud as well. The visibility was not great and there was mist which made it difficult to see the centerline.


Synopsis: CE560 Captain reported while taxiing at poorly lit airport; right main landing gear vacated taxiway causing aircraft to become lodged in wet sod. Passengers deplaned and aircraft secured for further assessment.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were taking off on Runway 18L in CLT at a heavy weight. It is well known by crews that there is a significant bump where [Runway] 18L and Runway 23 intersect. At the heavy weight we were at; a significant bouncing up and down of the nose occurred. Control of the aircraft was maintained throughout the takeoff roll. The effect of the bump can be reduced by adding some back-pressure on the control wheel. Crewmembers should not have to be doing this at an airport. This bump is getting worse and is similar to the way the intersection of Runways 35 and 27R in PHL used to be. That unacceptable condition was fixed and I strongly feel that this condition in CLT also needs to be fixed.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Captain reported the significant bump on CLT Runway 18L at the intersection of Runway 23 is apparently becoming more pronounced over time forcing a nose strut bouncing motion.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DAB.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C DAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON DAB
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: As we were getting vectors for the approach RNAV 7L; I; the instructor; was handling the radios and the student was flying the aircraft. During our approach clearance from ATC the student said; 'Look do you see that?' He pointed up and about 1:30 clock reference. When I looked I saw 2 white lights about a wingspan length apart and from what I believe was an aircraft descending on top of us. I took the controls and bank and pitched the aircraft down and descended to 1;000 MSL. A total amount of 600 FT was lost in the event. I reported to ATC what I have done and my reasoning and then they asked if I would like vectors around for another approach to which we agreed with. While getting vectors for the approach again; ATC reported to us that there was no aircraft in the area that could have been a conflict with our flight path. We continued the approach and landing uneventful. In the debrief between the student and I we came to an agreement that what we saw was an aircraft of some caliber descending on top of us. The student and I did not see a landing light; position lights; or strobe lights. All we saw was 2 white recognition lights coming down on top of us. The student saw the aircraft maneuver away from us as we started our descending left bank turn.




Synopsis: An instructor took the aircraft from his student after they saw two aircraft lights descend into them while in an instrument approach to DAB. ATC reported no nearby traffic.
Date: 201307
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: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure and above the cloud deck where it is smooth my First Officer and I noticed a continuous elevator oscillation. We leveled off around 14;000 FT and oscillation stopped. We continued climb and as soon as climb power was introduced oscillation started again. This time we leveled off at FL240 and after discussion I declared an emergency and returned to the departure airport for an overweight landing.

Callback: The reporter stated that the oscillation frequency with climb power applied was about 3 'bumps' per second. In level flight at 14;000 FT the 'flutter' was absent. During climb to 24;000 FT the 'flutter' was evident again but after leveling and with the power reduction; the anomaly ceased. The 'flutter' was felt throughout the aircraft and the reporter decided it was serious enough that he returned to the departure airport. He had not heard the cause of the event; but was told that this was a repeat event with this aircraft.



Synopsis: A B737-800 developed an elevator flutter with a frequency of about 3 oscillations per second with climb power applied; an emergency was declared and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
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: Regional Jet was an RNAV NELYN departure. He was already established on the departure climbing out of 9;500 or so. I was just ready to switch the Regional Jet to ZFW when I noticed a target (with an altitude) northbound at 14;000 that had just missed another Regional Jet flight en route to ACT at 14;000; already talking to ZFW. I determined that I should hold on to the Regional Jet until I determined what the unknown traffic was doing since the Regional Jet was climbing to 17;000. I called our Flight Data position and asked them to full route beacon code to determine who the aircraft was and if he was IFR or VFR. Flight Data stated that the beacon code in question was not stored. The unknown traffic was opposite direction to the Regional Jet and was now approximately 15 miles apart and the unknown traffic was descending and the Regional Jet was climbing out of approximately 12;000. The unknown traffic leveled at 12;000; then disappeared. I watched for the target to reappear and it never did at any altitude. I wrote this up in a stars report. When discussing this; other controllers said that they have seen the same thing with these 'ghost targets'. Today in talking with others; they said that the STARS people and management were aware that STARS has a 'ghost target' problem. To me this is a HUGE safety issue. Had my aircraft got closer to the ghost target I would have issued a safety alert with alternative 'immediate' instructions. In turn; this could have caused possible injury to persons or aircraft had the pilot made immediate evasive maneuvers to miss a 'ghost target' that was not even there! If this issue is actually known to exist and is randomly occurring then we should immediately cease operation of this system until it can be determined what is causing this and it is corrected.  We have the ability to 'fall back' to the ARTS IIIE but only for a short time longer. Someone needs to find out what is causing this and how to correct this before we cause an accident or injury that did not need to occur.




Synopsis: D10 Controller described an unsafe condition involving the STARS equipment displaying 'ghost targets.' The reporter suggested a return to the ARTS III equipment until this anomaly can be corrected.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
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: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We first noticed engine thrust surging during climb through 12;000 ft. The aircraft wasn't climbing at a normal rate. Then through 15;000 ft.; N1 on the number 1 engine was observed to be surging between approx 56% N1 and the climb target N1. We elected to level off at FL 190 to troubleshoot. This was difficult due to the absence of EICAS (Engine Indication and Crew Alerting System) messages or abnormalities other than the N1 indications. The engine continued surging on and off for roughly 5 minutes between 56% N1 and the cruise target of about 79% before normalizing. A decision to request priority handling was made and along with our Dispatcher we elected to continue to ZZZ. The flight attendants were briefed on the situation. The rest of the flight was normal until initiating the descent at which time the number 1 engine surged again briefly and normalized again throughout the landing roll. Upon rollout ENG 1 NO DISPATCH EICAS message illuminated. The MX logbook entries were made and MX personnel met the aircraft at the Gate. I'll note that 2 MELs were present on the aircraft; ENG 1 short dispatch and engine 1 bleed system.




Synopsis: ERJ-190 flight crew reported the number one engine surging during climb out. The crew elected to continue to the destination with priority handling.
Date: 201504
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Upon descent into SFO on the SERFR ONE Arrival; we were cleared to descend via the arrival. The arrival terminates with MENLO at 4;000 feet. However; we were told to plan the TIPP TOE visual to 28L. The first fix is MENLO at 5;000 feet. Then; ATC asked us to maintain 6;000 feet. These altitude differences caused minor confusion. Despite the confusion; the aircraft remained on VNAV PATH and the approach proceeded without incident. The purpose of this report is to highlight the altitude differences which cause minor confusion. Also; while remaining on the descent path; we were informed by ATC that we would leave class Bravo airspace. We re-entered within a mile or so. No known violation or deviation occurred; we just want to highlight the confusion.




Synopsis: Assigned to descend via the SERFR ONE Arrival and to expect the TIPP TOE Visual to RWY 28L at SFO; B737 First Officer noted a 1;000 FT variance in the altitudes at MENLO for the two procedures.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Staffing; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: A line [of] weather started to build. Because of this; all aircraft traversing the airspace deviated north of a fix; then slowly turned back to the southwest. The volume of traffic was exceedingly high. The concentration of aircraft was such that it was all but impossible to keep data blocks from overlapping and obscuring one another; thereby making traffic searches very difficult. Due to the weather and bad rides frequency congestion was very bad. This extremely high volume of concentrated traffic affected [numerous] ARTCC sectors.The supervisor was well aware of what was going on. He asked Traffic Management Unit (TMU) to reroute traffic but was told there was nothing they could do. He had the Operations Manager come down to see the situation and get TMU to do something. The event lasted about an hour. In my almost 30 years controlling this is one of a the worst situations I have seen.TMU needs to more proactive and responsive to developing situations. They don't seem to take these lapses in their performance seriously. They are quick to come down and complain to our supervisors when we come up a couple miles short in a spacing situation; yet it seems; no one holds them accountable when these type of situations happen.




Synopsis: An ARTCC Controller worked a period of traffic of extreme complexity due to numerous weather deviations and too many aircraft routed through their airspace.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the CA and PF.  We were on vectors and assigned altitudes with clearance to descend to fly the RNAV Y to Runway 4.  I used vertical speed to initiate descent.  We got low prior to DNNIS and received a call from LGA ATC.  We corrected to 1700 feet; VNAV PATH; and flew the remainder of the RNAV Y approach to Runway 4 for an uneventful full stop landing.Slow down sooner and; on a divert relocation flight; brief the whole approach prior to takeoff.


Second narrative: During the approach to LGA RWY 4; we were vectored direct to DNNIS for right dogleg to RWY 4; and cleared to descend out of 3000 FT to DNNIS at 1700 FT and to intercept the RNAV Y 4 course. We intercepted the course and continued descending below 1700 FT prior to DNNIS. LGA ATC gave us a low altitude call. We corrected up to the VNAV PATH and continued the approach to a normal landing. We could have pre-briefed the whole LGA approach while on the ground [prior to departure]. We also could have slowed down and configured earlier.


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported descending below charted altitude of 1;700 FT on approach to LGA after a short flight.