elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; 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: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On RNAV approach; in LNAV and VNAV; the aircraft started to slow. We were level at 3000 FT with 2400 FT set for the next descent. ATC asked us to maintain 210 knots. I used Speed Intervention to maintain speed and did not notice the airplane began to drift down to 2400 FT. Caught it about 2600 FT and started back up.  By then; it was time to descend to 2400 FT. It was an automation error and totally my fault. I must not understand the system as well as I thought I did.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reports his aircraft beginning to slow automatically during an RNAV approach while level at 3000 feet; with 2400 feet set in the altitude window for the next step down altitude. ATC asks for 210 knots to be maintained and speed intervention is selected on the MCP which results in an early descent that is quickly corrected.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Encounter at 30;000 feet we received a 'C HYD QTY' EICAS message. Center hydraulic quantity was at 0.48 and decreasing. Contacted Flight Control and decided to divert. We decided to try to land while we still had center hydraulic pressure. We kept our speed up and received an ARTR (Amended Release to Read) for change of destination. It began to appear that we would not land prior to losing all center hydraulic fluid; so we descended about 50 NM early and extended the landing gear with 0.13 in the center reservoir. The gear extended normally; but when we selected Flaps 1 we lost all center hydraulic pressure. We followed AOM procedures for lost C HYD pressure; [advised ATC] and landed. We had a 757 Captain jump seating with us and we use him to aid the FO (First Officer) as PM (Pilot Monitoring) in executing the non-normal checklist and procedures.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported hydraulic system malfunction during cruise.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: an A320 was cleared to descend via the IVANE 5 into CLT.  This gives the aircraft a window crossing the MAYOS intersection between FL240 and FL260.  The aircraft crossed MAYOS at FL220 and descending.  ZTL had to stop the aircraft from descending further.  I was the field level manager (FLM) of the area at the time of the event and the CPC working the position brought this to my attention.  This is a known issue that has been reported numerous times before. The descend via the IVANE 5 needs to be terminated to prevent this from happening in the future.


Second narrative: The aircraft was level at FL240 and I issued a descend via clearance. The aircraft is supposed to hit a window at mayos of FL24-FL260 then continue down via the arrival. I switched the airplane and then the next controller called me and said the aircraft checked in descending to six thousand; missing all of the windows. he stopped the aircraft at FL220 and then questioned the pilot. Train the pilots who fly the airbus to manually hit the windows and override the computer.


Synopsis: Two ZDC Controllers report another instance of an Airbus flight crew missing the crossing restriction at MAYOS on the IVANE5 arrival to CLT.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While the reporting aircraft was on an extended left base turn; the aircraft that was supposed to follow the reporting traffic behind turned directly towards the reporting aircraft. The distance (horizontal) between the reporting and other aircraft was approximately 200ft according to G1000 TIS. Prior to the near miss; the other aircraft's CFI reported to have the traffic to follow 'in sight.' When the other aircraft turned towards the reporting aircraft on base; ATC promptly instructed the other aircraft to return to downwind immediately. Due to ATC's quick response; no evasive action was needed to be performed by the reporting aircraft. Evasive maneuvers would have been difficult due to a busy pattern. ATC's sharp observation prevented the problem to deteriorate.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported an NMAC with another aircraft that had turned to a wrong heading and was quickly corrected by ATC.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took the plane out to practice maneuvers etc. and was out for about an hour and a half.  There were a lot of planes in the area when I returned from the north and was asked to fly down the east side of the valley to enter a right downwind for Runway XX and to report midfield.  I repeated the instruction and entered the right downwind for Runway XX.  As I was about to report at mid-field; the controller stated that he saw me and cleared me to land on Runway XX.  A couple of minutes later; I believe he also stated that a plane was holding short for takeoff until I landed.I passed around the back of the landmark; made the right turn to the runway heading and saw the runway.  I then finished my landing checklist and proceeded to land on what I thought was Runway XX. Just as I was about two feet off the runway a second or so before the wheels touched; I heard the tower say to 'go-around' just as my wheels touched the ground. This was immediately followed by the tower stating-- [aircraft call sign] cleared to land Runway XX.I have no one to blame; nor any condition to blame for my mistake--I was shocked beyond belief that I had landed on the wrong runway and as many times as I've heard other pilots talk about it happening to them; I honestly thought it would never happen to me; as I have not had a single incident in 10 years of flying.  I have only one possible answer for my error and that is the 'confirmation bias' I've read about and heard discussed in the FAA courses and webinars I've taken.I take full responsibility for my error.  To say I'm embarrassed is an understatement; but one good thing has come of this:  I'm now acutely aware of the reality of confirmation bias from this first-hand experience and will definitely be intensely focused on confirming and reconfirming my runway prior to landing forever more.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported landing on the wrong runway and not being aware of doing so until the Tower Controller instructed the pilot to go-around.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: M98.TRACON, MN
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON M98
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air carrier descending via BAINY STAR; at apx. 8;300 feet reported near collision with a drone over the downtown Minneapolis area. Pilot estimated drone passed overhead by about 10-30 feet. Pilot stated it was a quadcopter type with red lights. 4 or 5 other aircraft passed through the same area over the next half hour but no other sightings reported.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew descending via a STAR procedure experienced a near miss with a UAS passing approximately 10-30 feet below. Flight crew notified ATC.
Date: 201910
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After doing the safety demonstration I went to the AFT of the aircraft to complete my compliance and confirm my galley secure when I smelled a burning odor. I called FA-A and asked her to come and tell me what she smelled. She notified the CA and he called me and asked what I smelled. I reiterated the smell was a burning smell. FA-A confirmed she smelled something but could not clearly identify what the smell was. The CA called Maintenance. Upon arrival and after some investigating; they confirmed the burning smell and we deplaned.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Flight Attendant reported 'burning odor' in the aft galley during taxi. Captain executed an uneventful ground gate return after being notified.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were cleared on the EPKEE TWO RNAV departure; clearance from PDC was climb and maintain 10;000 FT which we correctly did. We were approximately 4 miles west of MLHOS intersection and the Controller said '[Callsign] climb and maintain FL230; comply with SID altitude restrictions.' There was a slight pause in the middle of the transmission at the comma. I was hand flying. As I heard climb and maintain; I pushed up the power and began to rotate the nose upward. As the climb had just begun; the pilot not flying informed me that the next waypoint MLHOS had an; at or below 10;000 FT restriction. We reached 10;350 FT and returned to 10;000 FT. So why did this happen. I was hand flying the aircraft. When you hand fly; you can do things much faster than with autoflight. I heard climb and maintain so I began to climb. In retrospect; I should have waited until the MCP was reset and I verified before beginning the climb. Never before had I ever heard after an unrestricted climb (to 10;000 FT) level off; 'Climb and maintain XXX; comply with SID altitude restrictions.' I do feel however that these new RNAV SIDS are problematic for Controller communications. We climbed to 10;000. We were then given a climb; but interpreting the SID; the climb was not to begin for another 4 nm. A better way for the Controller to communicate would have been '[Callsign] maintain One Zero Thousand feet until MLHOS; then climb and maintain FL230 and comply with SID altitude restrictions.' Given that the new Climb Via SOP begins in a few days; I think standard phraseology will help things along with the use of VNAV exclusively for these procedures. If the controller had said something along the lines of 'Climb Via the SID; maintain FL230;' I am certain this event would not have happened.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew; given a clearance to climb and comply with SID altitude restrictions; started an immediate climb before realizing that there was an altitude restriction at their present altitude for the next fix on the SID.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the charted RNAV visual approach into runway 15 at BUR; we were approaching GOBLT on both the lateral and vertical path. We received one 'terrain; terrain pull up' just as we were beginning the final turn. The warning happened once and the captain continued the approach due to his familiarity with the terrain and airport. We are aware of SOP to conduct the escape maneuver when at night; but the captain decided the best course of action was to continue because the warning ceased immediately after we began our turn.




Synopsis: A320 First Officer reported receiving a GPWS warning during an RNAV approach. The crew decided to continue the approach instead of following standard operating procedure.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Working the arrival portion of east combined with DRE and SATE. Aircraft Y checked on the RNAV arrival descending via and Aircraft X checked on about 7-8 miles behind also descending via. As Aircraft Y began a slow descent they slowed while Aircraft X did not. As the distance rapidly decreased I stopped Aircraft X at 11;000 to keep them from hitting Aircraft Y. The Conflict Alert (CA) went off (way too late like it always does now that we have been forced to change to fusion and the STARS software wasn't updated). Aircraft X continued at 11;000 and actually passed above Aircraft Y well over 100 knots faster. Aircraft X ended up first in the sequence due to their speed which may have been their plan all along. There is nothing in the RNAV arrivals that made this illegal. However this shows it is not a safe procedure. Almost every pilot flies it different and there is no automatic safety net provided where all the aircraft should be at the same speed descending via a profile to the same altitude. They can come into our airspace at flight levels going 400 plus knots or come in over the boundary already at 100 with 70 miles left to fly doing 210 knots and both are perfectly legal. As you can see by this example this can really burn you. If you are distracted with other duties it can sneak up on you in a heartbeat. I recommend that we add speeds and altitudes on the arrival tying the pilots down to more of a 'tunnel' instead of leaving it so wide open.

Callback: Discussion with reporter was about the Fusion Radar system and STARS. Reporter thinks that STARS may not have the capability for such a fast update from the Fusion radar; which causes the CA to possibly be delayed. Fusion updates according to the reporter every half second; where before using STARS and a single radar it updated about every 10 seconds.



Synopsis: Controller reports of incident where the trailing aircraft doesn't slow and overtakes preceding aircraft which are separated by 1;000 feet. Reporter states that Conflict Alert goes off but not in a timely manner which may be due to use of fusion radar and a software problem.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Brought to the attention of about five agents that the armed individuals on our flight were not on our paperwork. I asked multiple times for them to be added and it never was. They stated only FAMS needed to be listed. Which states all armed individuals need to be listed per FAM 6.4 page 5 49 CFR 1544-210. I got busy in the back and the boarding door was closed. We pushed back. And then had a maintenance issue and had to go back to gate; I once again brought it to their attention and they stated the same thing and honestly didn't seem to be bothered by it. I was having a hard time finding it in the manual once I found it we had already pushed back but were still on the ground I called the flight deck and let them know I had found it in the manual that it should be on our device showing armed individuals onboard. The information was never corrected nor updated. The seats that should have been listed were [XYZ] and [PDQ].I have had this same issue at DFW before with have to really push the agents to get the paperwork correct with armed individuals. Maybe some extra training or a notice sent out so everyone is on the same page. Also the app that is used for our manual is extremely hard to use and not user friendly. Something needs to be done about this. I know how to search properly for items I'm looking for it is the app that's difficult to use.




Synopsis: B737 Flight Attendant reported having several armed passengers on board failing to be properly listed by ground personnel on the manifest.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
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 B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Controller advised us that we would be going below Class B airspace. We advised that we would need to slow below 200 knots. Controller requested we keep our speed up as it was IFR and there was no traffic below us. Confusion about Controller ability to waive 200 Knot limit. On arrival; we called Duty Officer and discussed with ATC liaison. We also followed with a call to ATC Supervisor.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported confusion when ATC requested speed above 200 knots when below the Class Bravo airspace.