elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TCY.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Stationair/Turbo Stationair 6
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Improperly Operated; Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While maneuvering on a training flight operated under VFR with two pilots on board: Pilot flying and pilot not flying. I was the pilot flying. The aircraft was receiving traffic advisories from NorCal Approach. Inadvertently; the radio was switched from the frequency we were supposed to be on to the previous frequency we had been on (both pilots were unaware that this switched occurred). A short time later; we saw an aircraft about 4 miles away and near our altitude. We kept the aircraft in sight and it passed about 300 FT above of our aircraft. Both pilots were confused that no traffic advisory was given by Approach Control. About 5 minutes later; we reported that we were ready to return to our departure airport and ATC informed us that we were on the incorrect frequency. We returned to the correct frequency and ATC informed us that they issued a traffic alert for that previously discussed aircraft. I am unsure how the frequency was switched; however; I believe one pilot accidentally hit the COM switch button (Garmin G530) while adjusting the volume on the unit. More attention to detail can prevent this from occurring in the future. It is important to verify that the correct frequency is in the active window; especially after adjusting something on the G530. Also; having the com switch button redesigned by moving it to a safer location or set deeper into the unit for protection might aid to prevent inadvertently switching the COMs.




Synopsis: Two C206 pilots conducting training discovered that the NoCal Approach frequency was switched on their Garmin G530; but they did not discover the switch until after a near miss.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Normal Brake System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the [Relief Pilot]. Captain and First Officer were on break. We received a severe turbulence segment on our outs of flight from FL240 to FL410. Requested deviation below which was denied and then to offset laterally 150 miles; but only given 120 miles. We considered weather deviation without a clearance procedures as well as declaring an [urgent situation]. As Captain was awake in the seat; and had requested we wake him in prior briefing should an event like this be considered; he came up to flight deck. I then sat in Observer's seat. He had [another Relief Pilot] CPDLC to ATC that we would be deviating to the lat/long of outer most point of severe turbulence segment which was a 148 offset. As this was not our clearance; I suggested the weather deviation without a clearance procedure as well as possibility of declaring an [urgent situation]. We had just been cleared from FL400 to FL390 while preceding on the south offset. The Captain did not want to go up or down 300 feet with the decency of the altitude clearance. We turned on all lights and broadcast our position and intentions on both 121.5 and 124.45. We talked to Dispatch on SAT comm. We reached Nadi Radio who said we were only cleared to offset 120 miles and we were at 148 miles. We received the same message over CPDLC. I spoke with Nadi Radio and said we were given no other options as we were flying through an area of forecast severe turbulence. We were then given a clearance through Nadi Radio to deviate up to 148 miles and received the same on CPDLC.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported departing the runway while landing and making the flight without an airman certificate in reporter's immediate possession.
Date: 201810
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Received a box of mail from the Post Office tagged for ZZZ agent scanning the mail did not pay attention to what was being scanned. Looking at the side of the box clearly shows corrosive marking on the package. The mail was scanned to flight and loaded; ZZZ caught the error and removed package and returned to the Post Office.




Synopsis: Ground personnel reported removal of package which indicated corrosive markings and returned to sender.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flight Dynamics
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending through F190; we entered into moderate turbulence and rain. We were direct to waypoint ZZZZZ on the ZZZZZ5 arrival after avoiding weather at ZZZZZ1. Our clearance was direct ZZZZZ; 16000 and maintain by ZZZZZ1. After initiating in range check; an IAS comparator was displayed on my PFD. At this time AP/ATS were both on. All three airspeeds were fairly close with pilots being slightly lower than FO and standby. ATS then disconnected uncommanded as PM referred to the checklist. While initiating the checklist; this 2 additional LV 2 alerts SEL ELEV FEEL MAN SEL FLAP LIM OVRD appeared. As this occurred I noticed that we had descended through 16000 feet with the AP engaged. I disconnected the AP and corrected the altitude. We made a preliminary judgment that we had unreliable airspeeds and [notified ATC] with approach control. Subsequently; we broke out of the clouds; saw we were clear of the terrain; identified SLC and asked for 12;000 ft and BLUPE INT. Approach Control cleared us the ILSXXR at that time. While I continued to descend and configure the airplane; we completed QRH checklists with the Capt. selecting the FO Air data computer for subsequent operation. AP/ATS and FD disengaged without warning several additional times; I continued the approach after terminating the Emergency and landed uneventfully. On landing despite IAS agreement in both seats; the GS readout on the Nav display showed a 35 knot tailwind on the PM (Capt side) and a 7 knot HW on the FO side. Tower reported winds were consistent with the FO displays. Airspeed comparator warning and subsequent malfunctions of the AP/ATS.Radar displays showed only light rain on our route of flight. Given the data presented I don't think his situation was avoidable.


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


Synopsis: Wide body transport first officer and dispatcher reported loss of airspeed indication and other flight dynamic warnings.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During climb and in communication with LA Center; we had been on a heading with the autopilot flying in HEADING mode when we were cleared direct to SLAPP intersection. I was the PNF and did input the DIRECT to SLAPP into the FMS; and engaged NAV mode on the autopilot. I assume it was at this time; inadvertently and unknown to me that the Auto Sequencing mode of the FMS was switched to inhibited; which cancels the waypoint sequencing. We flew over SLAPP and instead of the slight right turn to YAPPI; we continued on the course that had taken us direct to SLAPP. As we were climbing through FL271 on the way to FL330; LA Center issued an immediate heading 120; as we had flown off our course and were nearing R-2515; having penetrated their 3 mile buffer zone. We complied immediately and proceeded with the controller's instruction to resume course. Better due diligence on my part; along with my now understanding the ease of which the FMS can be taken out of Auto sequencing has corrected the situation. Factors likely include my focus on ATC instead of our situation. Fatigue was not a factor as this was the first flight of the day after spending most of the day in the hotel. After speaking with the ATC manager concerning the possible pilot deviation; I was told that the issuing controller was able to contact Josh Approach to get us a 'point out approved'; which also was approved with the military. We were in R2515 for about 15 miles and from FL271 until we exited at FL316. Our airspeed was 250 KIAS.


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


Synopsis: Air taxi flight crew reported they almost entered a restricted area when the FMS was mistakenly switched to inhibited mode which cancels waypoint sequencing.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Los Angles Center gave us a ZZZ1 crossing restriction of FL240 but later amended the restriction to cross ZZZ1 at FL230 or below and to maintain FL200. The flying pilot put FL200 with the altitude selector. We both saw and confirmed and pointed at the newly selected altitude in the Primary Flight Display (PFD). Then the flying pilot put in the flight management system the wrong altitude of 2;300 Below at ZZZ1. I quickly corrected him and the pilot flying put in FL230B. We were 15 miles from ZZZ1 at FL250; the restriction was no problem. Here is where it gets it gets crazy (busy and distracted). I later looked down we were 10 miles past ZZZ1 at FL234. The altitude selected in the PFD showed 21;300. It had changed by itself! I can only guess it changed when we entered the wrong altitude in the FMS. We are using the Honeywell Primus Epic FMS with phase 5 [software]. Our company is taking out phase 5 and going back to phase 4. For example phase 5 has restrictions that we can't fly a coupled approach below 800 FT because of nose tuck under incidents. Phase 5 can't be trusted and needs to be off the CE680.




Synopsis: A CE-680 flight crew failed to meet a crossing restriction when the FMS appeared to have unilaterally altered their programming of the restriction.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SAN.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SAN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Missed a head-on collision with a large drone by an estimated 100 [feet] or less. The drone was still visible in the top of my windscreen as we passed underneath. It was completely centerline to our aircraft just slightly above our glide path to RWY 27 into SAN. When I made the report we were on path inside a mile prior to CIJHI I believe.  The drone was very large and shaped like a large garage door motor or a plastic shell that you keep luggage in on top of your car.  It was a shiny; metallic red color with a chrome sheen similar to how colleges are painting their alternate football helmets.  Could not clearly identify any rotors; just the shape and color. It was not a small recreational drone; it appeared to be the size of a YETI cooler and we just missed hitting it dead on...not a few feet to the right or left; but dead center. We were asked the drone's direction of flight and responded west to east (towards us) but honestly it seemed to be stationary and was probably videoing planes arriving into SAN. The flight landed uneventfully. No damage was observed to our aircraft post-fight.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a NMAC with a UAV while on final approach.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the GUMBY1 RNAV SID from IAH; Runway 15L; we were assigned a top altitude of 4;000 FT on the PDC. When we contacted Departure they [cleared us to] climb via the SID except maintain 16;000 FT. I read back climb to 16;000 FT and continue via the SID. Departure stated again to climb via the SID except maintain 16;000 FT. By the time we correctly interpreted the clearance we had already removed the restriction to cross DWSUN Intersection at or below 5;000 FT from the FMS. Subsequently; we crossed DWSUN above the charted altitude. Departure handed us off to the center and the flight continued uneventfully. During high task loading and during a RNAV departure we should have queried ATC about any doubt or confusion of a clearance before entering a change into the FMS or selecting a new altitude.

Callback: Reporter advised that; being based on the East Coast; this had been his first departure from IAH utilizing the newly formatted SIDs and that he wasn't; at the time; completely conversant with the specific implications of the 'climb via' phraseology. His Captain on the flight had only recently returned from flying primarily international operations and was in a similar situation; thus the delay in proper programming of the climb via clearance.He responded affirmatively to the analyst's question as to the presence of the phrase '...top altitude 4;000...' in the PDC. In response to a follow up question he stated that the phrase 'climb via (the assigned SID)' was also included although he couldn't remember the exact sequence or how the two restrictive phrases had been juxtaposed when transmitted. Reporter followed up these responses by addressing his displeasure for the lack of a common format for PDC clearances and the fact that they often included information not germane to their actual cleared route. He also commented that their intent is often difficult to derive due to 'coding' and/or the inclusion of filed routes that are eclipsed by actual cleared routes given in a separate section of the clearance.



Synopsis: When the flight crew of an A320 misinterpreted ATC's 'climb via except maintain 16;000 FT' clearance they had already exceeded 5;000 FT prior to passing DWSUN which must be crossed at or below 5;000 FT.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Gate at ZZZ. At start of second engine; radar began to scan.  Discovered radar switch was left in radar.   I remember glancing at radar selector switch.  It was to the left of center.  But; both radar and standby are left of center.  At some point I remember thinking it's a -700; no need to turn the selector to standby.  I did not recheck the switch to verify that the switch actually was pointed to standby.  I started to check the weather radar and stopped for some reason. After the weather radar started to scan; I saw that the switch was in radar and not test.  The question is; was the switch in radar or did I automatically turn the switch when I was going to test the radar?  The result is the same.  I am responsible either way. People were in and out of the forward area for short periods of time.  The person who I saw the most was the female ramp individual. I estimate that she was at the left 70-90 degrees from the nose of the aircraft at between 20 feet to 25 feet from the aircraft.  Perhaps; five minutes at that position.  Then she operated the tug.  Approximately five minutes from pushback to discovery of the radar switch.  That will be the first switch I check upon entering the flight deck on every single flight.




Synopsis: During the B737-700's second engine start at the gate; the Captain noticed the radar begin scanning and selected standby; but was puzzled whether it had been left ON from the previous flight or his preflight was incomplete.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-500
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A B737 checked on frequency with a requested [filed] altitude of FL370; when I climbed him to FL330 he said they needed to stay at FL250 for operational reasons and company should have re-filed; which they didn't. A couple of minutes later; I thought I heard someone say they needed to descend to ten thousand feet. I asked if it was the B737; he said affirmative and I started him down to FL240 my lowest altitude. He said he needed to get to ten as soon as possible so I said on frequency that this is an emergency situation and descended him to 10;000 feet. I quick looked the sector below me and reset my altitude limits to watch out for traffic. I asked the nature of emergency and if they needed anything special and they said they would get back to me. We pointed him out to the sector below me. I got him an altimeter and had the low sector coordinate for lower altitude. They then said they needed to return to the departure airport and to get down to 8;000 feet. I cleared via left turn direct and to maintain 8;000 feet. This was the first time in an emergency situation that the pilot was too busy to tell ATC the nature of the problem. I felt that I couldn't tell others around me of what they could do to help and after asking the flight crew twice of nature of problem and being told to stand by or they'll get back to me I didn't want to cause them any more problems than they were currently dealing with. This resulted in limiting my coordination with adjacent sectors.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an emergency descent event when the request for an immediate descent did not permit time for coordination with adjacent sectors prior to entry.