elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MRY.Airport, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X flew the ILS 10R at MRY. They executed a missed approach because they could not get the runway lights on (the Tower was closed). The missed approach is basically a climbing left turn approximately heading 030 to 5;000 feet. The aircraft climbed to 2;800 feet and flew runway heading towards high terrain. They did not check in with me until about 2 miles past the runway end. They were already in a 3;700 feet. MVA heading towards a 5;000 feet MVA. I issued an immediate climb to 6;000 feet; a low altitude alert; and a vector away from terrain. I issued Aircraft X the pilot deviation statement; later while they were being sequenced for the ILS.I suspect that the aircrew was behind the aircraft workload the whole time and did not notice the published missed approach. I gave the pilot the CTAF frequency to turn on the lights. So it is odd that they could not turn on the lights. The other aircraft had no issues turning on the lights. They might have been running numbers for landing because the wind slightly favored Runway 28; but the ceiling was too low.The pilot should have informed me that they were not 100% ready for the approach. I could have easily accommodated this request and given them ample time to get ready. At the very minimum; an expeditious switch to my frequency during the missed approach could have prevented this.




Synopsis: NCT TRACON Controller reported an airliner had difficulty getting the runway lights on; executed a go-around; and ended up below the MVA.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: 19.6 mile final switched to Tower cleared on visual approach. Tower Controller was working both Ground and Tower on same frequency. She was giving clearances to taxi to entire bank. Controlling approaches and takeoffs and all the ground traffic.  When there is a light load. It is distracting. When the Ground push with all the readbacks and Controller directions during a bank push this is very unsafe for the pilots flying the aircraft. Unsafe unsafe unsafe! I wanted to turn off the Tower frequency.Controller working multiple frequencies.Make Controller only work the Tower frequency.  Flying pilots should not hear Ground Clearances on the Tower frequency.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported being distracted by the Tower Controller working Ground and Local Control.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: FFZ.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Tower FFZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying the departure; at 3;700 feet over the RC superstition air park; I spotted a drone traveling northbound. I was traveling south east bound. It looked like a basketball; with vertical rotors. Was at approximately at 3;800 feet. Black in color. Reported to FFZ tower.




Synopsis: PA-28 pilot reports a NMAC with a UAV at 3;800 feet approximately 8 NM east of FFZ.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Manuals; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X requested to maintain his own terrain and obstruction clearance and a turn in higher terrain. I cleared him as requested and he turned into higher terrain below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA). I was advised by management that my phraseology was incorrect and I needed to verify the pilot wanted a VFR climb before approving the turn. I recommend briefings on requirements for this type of scenario.




Synopsis: Controller reported being told he misapplied a rule for climbing aircraft below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PVD.TRACON, RI
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PVD
ATC / advisory: TRACON PVD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was providing on the job training to a CPC in training. Traffic wasn't that busy or complex. We took radar on [an aircraft] but never got him on frequency. We reached out to him a few times with no response. We believed he was too low for radio coverage as is common in that sector especially with our frequency at Block Island out of service. Our first contact with him was just prior to exiting our airspace saying he would like to report a near mid air collision. We got the information from him and advised we did not have communication with him nor did we see any traffic for him in the mentioned area at the time he traversed the area. The nearest traffic that may have been the one in conflict was orbiting off the coast of westerly WST at 1;200.




Synopsis: PVD TRACON Controller reported taking radar on a VFR aircraft; but was unable to initially contact him via VHF. When the aircraft did come on frequency he reported an NMAC. An ATC radio outage may have prevented initial contact; but no NMAC was observed on radar.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Yesterday; I was working Sector 20 and Aircraft X checked in at FL360 with a clearance to cross OSOGY at FL240. About 5 minutes later; Aircraft X advises that he was beginning his descent to FL240 and I rogered him. Out of nowhere conflict alert activates and I tell Aircraft X to amend altitude and maintain FL330. Aircraft X initially did not respond and I told him again amend altitude maintain FL330 and he responded. There was crossing traffic at his 11 to 12 o'clock and less than a mile at FL320 (Aircraft Y). Aircraft X had been given a descent clearance from the previous sector; Sector 2; to FL240 with converging traffic at FL320.I really think something needs to be done about the safety culture and the quality of air traffic controllers. The particular controller working Sector 2; this is not his first close call and I feel nowadays there's just no accountability or consequences for subpar performances. I had no idea that Aircraft Y was on a converging course with Aircraft X because my sector owns SFC-230 and I don't see limited data blocks until FL242. Needless to say; yesterday's close call scared the living hell out of me because it happened all of a sudden and again I had no idea that Aircraft X was there. It's Sector 2's responsibility to ensure all conflicts are resolved in their air stratum before transferring communications to my frequency. Again; this is this controller's second close call in less than a month! Something really needs to be done before her actions result in a catastrophic event!




Synopsis: ZMA Controller reported of a conflict between two aircraft. Controller received an aircraft with a conditional clearance to descend. Minutes later the pilot reports leaving cruise altitude for new altitude. Conflict alert immediately goes off due to traffic 2;000 feet below. Controller stops aircraft altitude and issues traffic. Reporter stated this all happened in another sector and should have been resolved first; before the transfer of communications.
Date: 201809
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the radar controller at sector 10/11. STC Departure Aircraft X departed STC southeast bound and I initially issued a climb to 16;000. My D-side was training at the time with his trainer. He was working on all the point outs to M98 as Aircraft X was climbing out. I then issued the climb clearance to the aircraft's requested altitude of FL410. Since my D-side was busy making verbal point outs to M98 I PVD'd (Plan View Display) the aircraft to sector 8/9. When I came back around to this aircraft the automated point out was indicating that it had been approved from sector 8/9. That is when the D-side trainer mentioned to the trainee that it looks like Aircraft X is going to clip sector 8. I spoke up and said that 8 and 9 are combined and that 9 is already watching. They PVD'd the aircraft to sector 8 to confirm they were indeed combined. Since they were combined; my D-side accepted the point out so as to not have to have sector 8/9 approved the same point out. It was at that time that sector 8/9 called to question why we were approving our own point outs to them.From my side of it; all I was able to tell is that sector 8/9 had approved the point out and I moved on to other tasks. After the data of all entries had been pulled up; it turned out that the 10/11 D-side had 'approved' the automated point out inadvertently and did not realize that he had done so. At this point; Aircraft X was climbing through the Sector 8/9 airspace without approval from Sector 8/9.My recommendation is that the color of the 'A' in the data block turns a different color when the sector that needs to approve the point out actually does approve the point out.As of now; either the initiating or receiving sector can 'approve' the point out. There was no way of knowing that this PVD was 'approved' by the initiating sector and not the receiving. The 'A' in the data block looks the same whether the initiating sector or the receiving sector approves the PVD. Other option would be to only allow the receiving sector the ability to 'approve' the automated point out.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported airspace violations due to another sector approving point outs in which they should not have approved.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure; we received an overheat condition on the left bleed air. I pulled the power back and called for the checklist. When running the checklist; the light went out. If the light went out; the checklist ended. Had it not; we were to land as soon as practical. We discussed diverting or continuing. We were well over landing weight; and I determined it was best to continue to burn fuel rather than risk an overweight landing. I have landed overweight in the past for emergencies; but we were not an emergency aircraft; and I did not want to create an emergency by doing so. I considered the situation over since we had taken care of the overheat. I continued to discuss our alternatives with the first officer. We had a bleed air switched off after the checklist was run; and we decided not to fly up to FL450 as planned.A single bleed air can support the cabin; and some bombardier aircraft only have one pack. If I had to do it again; I would have chosen to level at a lower altitude and diverted once our fuel was burned off. We descended lower later in the flight. Bleed leaks are a common issue in Learjets. The indication went away and we had tested the fire detect system in flight again to make sure it was working properly. If there was a secondary problem; we were not covered by redundancy.




Synopsis: Learjet 60 Captain reported an overheat condition on the left bleed air. Light went out after running checklist. Flight continued to destination at lower altitude.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: ATL approach kept aircraft at 4000 feet and 180 knots. As has been the case for the last several years approach control will not give reasonable speed assignments or altitudes on approach. Complaints to the company and the union fall on deaf ears. It is impossible to fly with these restrictions and be stable within 1000 feet of landing. Moreover ATL controllers consistently argue with crews who request vectors around hazardous weather. Continuing this practice will result in an aircraft accident. As a pilot who requests vectors around weather or reasonable speed assignments veiled threats of a violation are waved in front of my face. Interestingly enough Chicago and New York controllers are some of the best in the world and rarely push air crews on approach. Hopefully this report will draw attention to this problem and help prevent an accident.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported that A80 controllers routinely keep aircraft high and fast during approach and disallow deviations for weather.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MYF.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MYF
ATC / advisory: Tower MYF
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: I was returning from the San Diego Harbor corridor and proceeding VFR via the D taxiway transition at 1;500 feet and in contact with Lindbergh Tower (KSAN). While proceeding northwest bound Tower informed me of banner tow traffic ahead in the corridor. After calling in sight and overtaking; I informed Tower I would passing traffic on his right. Tower acknowledged and shortly thereafter called me leaving their airspace and cleared me to switch frequencies. I then tuned KMYF tower frequency which was jammed with multiple communications. In fact Tower; after giving instructions; had informed aircraft to respond with callsign only; this was repeatedly ignored and further lead to an overwhelmed frequency. At this point; not being able to get a call out and approaching Class D; I elected to initiate a climb above the traffic pattern midfield. I felt this was the safest option under these circumstances: KSAN approach corridor was to the southeast of my position and I had just exited and left their frequency. And more critically; I felt I couldn't initiate a 180-degree turn because of the banner aircraft I had just passed; and at this time was not certain of his position. When I finally was able to establish contact with KMYF Tower I called a high midfield downwind position; was given a squawk and cleared to enter the traffic pattern; and cleared for landing without incident.




Synopsis: Pilot entered Montgomery airport's airspace without clearance due to a congested Tower frequency and nearby Class B airspace as well as conflicting traffic. Pilot climbed above pattern altitude and eventually received clearance from Tower.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Object; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Observer
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting a solo flight the student lost directional control on the runway after touchdown; ending up in the grass on the left side of the runway. Conditions for the solo flight were favorable. Winds were calm visibility was more than 10 SM. It was the third pass after two prior full stop taxi backs to the active runway when the incident occurred. The students landing was controlled and on centerline. Issues were not necessarily related to landing or flare but after as he attempted to use brakes and rudders to steer the aircraft centerline to come to a full stop. There was no damage to the aircraft at this point or any equipment malfunctions that could have contributed to the student having lost control that I know of. The only damage was to runway lights. I was able to push the aircraft back on to the runway and taxi it back to [the FBO.] The student did not obtain any injuries related to this incident. Prior to sending him solo he showed consistency and confidence. Three landings were done with me and there was not an issue with directional control on landings or takeoffs. I believe that he could have possibly defaulted back to using his hands rather than steering with his feet to control once he touched down from flight. Then panicked; giving too much pressure to the brakes rather than focusing on rudders to maintain centerline resulting in him going off the runway.




Synopsis: A student pilot lost control of his PA-28 after touchdown and departed the runway with no damage.