elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: King Air C90 E90
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [A BE99] was inbound with low fuel. We were on Runway 1L at the time due to low ceilings and visibility. Since [the BE99] must've been really low on fuel; he declared an emergency and requested Runway 25L. I activated the crash phone and advised the rescue personnel of the situation. [The BE99] was on a 5 mile final for Runway 25L when equipment started responding. (It was a very short time frame/notification from start to finish). As one of the County Operations vehicles was approaching Runway 25L; on Runway 1R; at a high rate of speed; [the BE99] was short final. So guess what happens; the ASDE-X issues a 'GO-AROUND!!!' warning. I could see it was because of the fast target driving north on the intersecting runway and I know we do not have discretion available to us but jee-zo-pete are we supposed to send the guy with no fuel around? I think not! And we did not. So there! Give us some discretion with the ASDE-X tool.




Synopsis: Tower Controller declined to issue a ASDE-X mandated go around to an emergency fuel aircraft on short final; noting the ASDE-X alarm likely occurred because of an emergency vehicle approaching the runway at a very fast speed.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: P80.TRACON, OR
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X; an ERJ-175; [was] climbing off of PDX via WHAMY departure. Clear him to WHAMY while pulling up the Minimum Separation between the ERJ-175 and a primary only target; northbound 20 miles southeast of PDX. Minimum Separation shows close; so I vector [the] ERJ-175 south around the primary target. As they get close; the primary turns northwest into the ERJ-175. They passed about 1 mile apart. While that was going on Aircraft Y; a B737; checked in climbing on the WHAMY departure. I issued him the traffic and took him north around the primary. While all that was going on; Aircraft Z; a B737 was descending on the TMBRS arrival near FLOWR. There was another primary only target 5 miles north of FLOWR headed southwest. As Aircraft Z made the turn at FLOWR I gave him vectors off the arrival for the primary traffic. PDX has class C airspace and safety would benefit greatly if we had class B or at least a mode C veil.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported that aircraft are routinely in conflict; at both arrivals and departures; from and to PDX and mentioned the associated Class C would benefit tremendously by either an upgrade to Class B; or a Mode C veil.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the LADYJ4 departure from LAX we were issued a climb clearance to 17;000. Upon leveling off at the assigned altitude; LA Center informed us of a corporate jet VFR at 16;500 who had us in sight. After a couple moments of searching we visually identified the traffic and responded to ATC that we also had the plane in sight. As it approached; it was clear that we were on somewhat of a converging course (though vertically separated by 500 feet). As the aircraft came within a couple hundred horizontal feet of us; we got a TCAS TA first and then a few seconds later a RA to 'monitor vertical speed' and pitch slightly down. The FO (First Officer); who was the PF (Pilot Flying) promptly disengaged the autopilot and correctly avoided the red boxes on the PFD while descending about 500 feet. I notified ATC that we were responding to an RA and were at 16;500 now. Shortly after and clear of the conflict we climbed back up to 17;000 and resumed the flight without further incident.It appears that ATC somewhat foresaw this potential conflict and didn't do an adequate job of providing separation. It seemed unnecessary to allow the two aircraft to come so close to each other. As flight crew; we could have proactively asked for a vector away from the potential conflicting traffic knowing that we were only vertically separated by 500 feet.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported NMAC on departure from LAX.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While preforming a soft field landing on Runway XX I drifted to the left on touchdown and came to a stop in the grass directly adjacent to the runway. There were no injuries of any kind or damage to the airplane. Winds were approximately 230 @ 8 knots; which complied with my solo endorsement. The FBO personnel immediately helped tow the airplane to the ramp and out of the controlled environment.I believe I may have not put in adequate crosswind control through the landing phase and my CFI and I are beginning remedial training immediately; starting tomorrow to address my proficiency further.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot reported a runway excursion during landing due to inexperience with crosswind conditions.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Relief Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: Manuals

Narrative: On descent into ICN; we were changing the FMS/CDU from a previously planned and entered south-runway; STAR; and approach; which was in the FMS database and EFB (Electronic Flight Bag) Jepp; to a different north-runway; STAR; and approach. At that time; we noticed most of the FMS/CDU north runway STAR names and identifiers were different than our EFB Jepp Data. Then; we verified EFB Jepp data dates. They were the new; updated today (expires yesterday). However; we identified the FMC database; that starts yesterday; was not selected.We verified and confirmed remaining FMC route waypoints for accuracy. They were the same as EFB Jepp waypoints. We decided to continue up to the verified route end waypoint; (before STAR begins). CRM alternatives and precautions were evaluated. Weather was CAVOK. Upon contact with ICN-Radar; we advised that our STAR/Approach database was inaccurate and requested radar vectors for an arrival to a visual approach; before STAR entry waypoint. We received radar vectors; prior to the last route end waypoint. We continued with normal radar vectors and descents to a visual approach and landing. [Causal factor was] FMC out of date.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Crew reported Flight Management Computer Database was out of date.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: In cruise; level at FL 380; we saw a weather balloon about half the size of a 737 with a long cable attached and a large object connected to the end of the cable; too close for evasive action. Object passed approximately 100' to 200' above the cockpit. ATC was quickly advised and other aircraft reported seeing the object. No locator device on an object that large? ATC had no clue it was in their airspace.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported NMAC at altitude with a weather balloon.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IND.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C IND
ATC / advisory: TRACON IND
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During descent we planned on using wing and engine anti-ice during approach tops where around 6;000 feet. We turned on the anti-ice around 12;000 feet on descent. Indianapolis approach was vectoring us for approach to Runway 23L. During descent we discussed a recent article posted on social media about icing and increased stalls speeds. The article discussed buffet during a flaps 25 or 30 approach on the 767. Indianapolis approach slowed us to 180 knots during vectors to approach causing us to have to use flaps 15 for a prolonged time. We were picking up moderate rime icing; as confirmed by at 'cone' forming on the windshield wiper attachment point. We were vectored onto the approach outside LARRY and told to intercept the LOC. We were then cleared for the approach and told to hold 180 knots to PACER. VREF was calculated at 138 knots with an approach speed of 143. We added a gust factor to VAPP and planned on an approach speed of 148. During flap extension from 20-25 we started to notice a buffet and the 'Hook' popped up to 143 knots. The First Officer called for flaps 30 and the buffet increased. We increased the approach speed to 155 knots and the buffet disappeared. We landed uneventfully. It was interesting that the hook was 5 knots above the VREF speed of 138. It was exactly as explained by the article. After landing I took several pictures of the left wing root; and left inboard flap and aileron. Even 10 minutes after landing there was significant ice on the inboard aileron and front of the flap fairing.If I had not read the article posted on social media I would not have been aware of the possible condition caused by moderate icing with prolonged flap extension in the 767. At no time did I feel that the aircraft was in a degraded condition; however if we had flown the calculated VREF+5 we would have been near the top of the 'Hook' and possibly with buffet. With the knowledge I learned to increase the approach speed I feel there was no safety of flight issue. I would suggest that [company] put out an official file in regards to this known condition.




Synopsis: B767-300 Captain reported experiencing airframe buffet probably related to ice accumulation on approach to IND.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: I wanted to share an experience on the new RNAV Visual Approach Runway 17L in MCO. There are two fixes that initiate this approach; CELOT and FELUK. On paper they look different; but in the heat of the moment over the radio they sound similar. During a recent approach we requested this procedure. Approaching from the northwest we were given direct FELUK; cross it at or above 3;000 ft. and cleared for the RNAV visual. Expectation bias led me to hear CELOT (the closer of the two fixes and the logical transition from our position) and I initially loaded that into the FMC; but fortunately the First Officer had heard FELUK and after a quick clarification with ATC we loaded and flew that transition. Definitely weird since we passed CELOT to fly to FELUK; which also required what I would call an inefficient turn to final. Not sure why the Controller did this. Perhaps for separation; or perhaps in the heat of the moment he thought that was the closest and most logical fix for us. I'd like to see one of the fixes renamed so they sound distinctly different; perhaps change one of the names such that both are not two syllables in length. Perhaps also add an alert that vectoring to the opposite side (further away) fix is possible.




Synopsis: Pilot reports similar sounding names of two fixes.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GRE.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZKC
ATC / advisory: Center ZKC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Other post flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: IFR to KGRE; requested the VOR/DME A approach to KGRE. Center advised a NOTAM applied; but I assumed the approach still authorized. I understood clear to maintain 2;400 until established and cleared for approach; but on reflection uncertain that clearance was for VOR/DME A. Approach was normal with landing at KGRE.Received field NOTAMs at KGRE on preflight briefing; but did not discover FDC 5/6341 until checking NOTAMs online later.




Synopsis: Pilot reported of not discovering a NOTAM that applied to his flight into airport. Pilot was unclear to what type of approach he was cleared for.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: M03.TRACON, TN
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E M03
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Second aircraft: Beechjet 400
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
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: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working East Arrival. ZME flashed a hand-off on an E135 inbound to MEM on the LTOWN 6 RNAV arrival. The aircraft indicated about 20;000 about 15 miles from the boundary. On the above arrival; the aircraft should be level at 10;000 and 230 KTS at COPEN which is about 2 miles inside our airspace boundary. I was aware that the E135 would not meet these restrictions; so I coordinated descending to 10;000 with an assigned speed of 230 KTS to avoid a heavy jet that successfully made the STAR restrictions about 10 miles ahead. The E135 crossed COPEN at about 15;500 and needed vectors for descent and sequence. About five minutes later; ZME flashed a hand-off on a Beechjet on the same arrival. This aircraft was about 10 miles from the boundary at about 20;000. I accepted the hand off and waited for ZME to call for coordination. They never did. Due to other duties; I finally talked to the Beechjet about 10 miles inside our airspace and asked if the pilot was aware of the restrictions on the STAR. The pilot replied that they had just been issued the LTOWN 6 and were looking up the charts. This is my first report on the newly implemented Optimum Descent Path (ODP) STARs at MEM. If these ODP STARs are going to be successful; ZME has got to be held accountable for meeting the STAR requirements and the M03 ZME LOA. This means that management at M03 has got to enforce the STAR requirements and the LOA and they have to support the controllers when they try to enforce these requirements. Unfortunately; M03 management is historically bad at supporting its own controllers and generally allows ZME to get away with anything. These new ODP STARs will succeed or fail at MEM depending on the quality of work done by ZME.




Synopsis: M03 Controller voiced concern regarding the newly implemented ODP procedures noting unless M03 controllers and management hold ZME controllers accountable for STAR compliance; the procedure will not be successful.
Date: 202011
Location: APC.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA20 Undifferentiated
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Other school
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: VFR traffic failed to level when instructed by ATC. I had to drop 500 feet and bank had while accelerating to avoid a mid air collision. We only got one small heading change from ATC that made us more of a factor.




Synopsis: Diamond DA20 pilot reported taking evasive action to avoid traffic.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear Indicating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed uneventfully; 30 minutes into flight; status message displayed: 'LDG GEAR MONITOR' accompanied by flickering amber 'GEAR' light. Note in departure papers highlighted potential for this anomaly. [We] consulted onboard manuals; [company] Maintenance; and requested (and received) consultation with a management pilot subject matter expert. Anticipating possible degraded braking/stopping capability; declared emergency with Approach Control and requested longest available runway. Received priority handling by ATC; landed uneventfully; and was met and followed by [Airport Fire Rescue] to parking. [Airport Fire Rescue] personnel visited cockpit to collect information from the Captain. As recommended in a QRH procedure; we did NOT arm the speed brakes for automatic deployment on landing; nonetheless; the speed brakes deployed automatically on touchdown. I am 100% sure we did not arm them prior to landing. Consultation with our Dispatcher and Assistant Chief Pilot was helpful. Maintenance Control; not so much. Maintenance did not seem to want to offer any benefit of whatever knowledge they had concerning past incidents with this aircraft. The advice I got was; essentially; follow your Aircraft Operating Manual procedures. There is no procedure. Problems with his particular aircraft are intermittent and; so far; uncorrected.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: The pilots of a B767 experienced a repeat landing gear fault message. They consulted with company personnel for advice; but were not impressed by the maintenance support. The landing was uneventful; however the crew was suprised that the speed brakes automatically deployed because they are sure they had not armed them.