elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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 Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X (WW24); I descended to 15;000 feet and gave the aircraft direct KEATN intersection on an aircraft landing at CGF. I was called by MFD sector in Cleveland and asked where he was going because the flight plan showed landing KEATN. I was surprised and alerted my supervisor to turn it in and couldn't imagine that I would have put KEATN with a DOWN arrow. She turned in the strip and today we found out that I did the following function (R30 - QU KEATN 'down arrow' CID of XXX).  I was in complete shock to learn that my brain on a slow sector could land an aircraft at an intersection.I have to be more diligent and realize that with idle periods that our thinking pattern can completely disconnect and with human error put in information that is alarming.




Synopsis: ZID Controller somehow entered into the computer that an aircraft was landing at an intersection instead of the intended airport by mistake. The receiving Controller was confused.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There was an MD-80 at taxiway EM holding to cross RWY 17R; I was behind him on M6 taxiway waiting to cross behind the MD-80. The MD-80 was given instruction to cross the runway 17R. I spooled up my engines; released my brakes in order to reposition to cross 17L as well. That is when I heard Tower say 'Don't cut him off' At the same time the copilot make some comment about an airplane to our right. I looked over to what he was referring to and saw this Regional Jet (RJ) cut right between our two aircraft. He maneuvered his aircraft well to the west of the taxi line to avoid hitting me as I started to roll forward. I slammed on the brakes to avoid hitting him as well.The RJ driver needs to be violated. He cut us off which happens in automobile traffic all the time I understand but doing that in big airplanes is not safe. Had the copilot not yelled and had I not slammed on the brakes his wing would have run into us. My suggestion for avoiding this in the future is to pull the other pilot's license. He should not be allowed to carry revenue passengers because of his willingness to put people in harm's way.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported a Regional Jet taxied in front of him abruptly; almost causing a collision.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Other Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Aircraft; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Crew Chief [at] ZZZ used a tool with expired calibration and altered calibration year to accomplish and close a Nose Landing Gear Shock Strut Fluid Check since the mechanics assigned could not accomplish the work due to expired calibration tooling. Crew Chief in ZZZ and this is the way he works. He goes to different airlines and borrow the tooling from [Company] with [Company] part number different from ours in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual. This is his way of working; also goes to [Company] to borrow calibrated tools.




Synopsis: Technician reported that an out of calibration borrowed tool with altered calibration date was used to conduct maintenance on an aircraft.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Another carrier was told to line up and wait on Runway 24R after being asked if he could accept that runway and he said yes. Suspect he did not change runway in his NAV database. We were told to maintain visual separation and cleared for takeoff on Runway 24L right after the other carrier was cleared for takeoff on 24R. After takeoff; he started to drift toward us and I started altering course slightly left to stay away from him.  About that time; we got the RA and complied. Either he didn't switch runway in his database or ATC gave an incorrect clearance to one or both of us. Departure seemed like they had no idea why we were both cleared for takeoff nearly in formation. I am curious myself as after both DLREY and FABRA the route takes both planes to ENNEY. We maintained visual separation until the RA but as we were basically cleared to takeoff on very close parallel runways at the same time we were very close to start with. We expected the other carrier or us would be given a turn away from each other after takeoff.




Synopsis: LAX air carrier departure described a developing conflict with parallel runway departure traffic after takeoff; the reporter suspecting the conflicting aircraft may not have changed database after a last minute runway change.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Unusual occurrence during takeoff run as multi-engine student. Instructor; CFI; requested that I perform short field takeoff following completion of run-up and 'Before Takeoff Checklist.' Per procedure items for the short field takeoff; flaps were set to takeoff; throttles increased to 20 in. MP (Manifold Pressure) to check engine indications; throttles increased to full rated power and brakes released with targeted rotation speed set for 65 KIAS. Noted that there was no airspeed indication on the GARMIN 950 at the nominal 'Airspeed Alive' cadence call...was nearing a speed nearing rotation which I believe was near 50 kts. I then; I said that 'THERE IS NO AIRSPEED ALIVE... ABORT' simultaneous with my reduction of throttle to idle on both engines and an application of braking. My instructor was not aware of the condition until after my application of the brakes... after which he notified Tower that we were terminating the takeoff. Taxi was direct back to the FBO at which time both engines were shutdown normally. There was no subsequent debrief of the emergency situation after the event. The CFI concerned himself primarily with using his cell phone to attempt to get a Mechanic to support the next day's flight schedule for the aircraft. I subsequently learned from the FBO staff that there had been a previous pitot static failure occurrence with this aircraft due to blockage in the pitot tube. There was no preflight by Maintenance prior to this day's activity. CRM concerns - terminating relationship with this FBO.




Synopsis: Small aircraft pilot reported rejecting takeoff due to airspeed indicator failure.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Participating in [military] GCA (Ground Controlled Approach) training at ZZZ. On short final; a non-participating aircraft approached us from above and behind. The aircraft was not heard on CTAF and apparently was not ADS-B Out equipped since it did not appear on our in-cockpit systems in the traffic pattern or on final. The [military] GCA Radar Controller called out the traffic; but due to position; we were both in each other's blind spots until a very close proximity. Upon visual contact with the conflicting aircraft we went around and side-stepped to the right of the runway to avoid any chance of a collision. During these PAR (Precision Approach Radar) approaches; the pilot flying is completely focused on the approach and a right seat observer/safety pilot; in this case; has limited visibility to the left. It is recommended that a left-rear seat observer be carried; or that the approach abandoned any time inbound traffic is detected by the GCA Controller (they should instruct a missed-approach and vector us away from the non-participating traffic). I will pass this on to our organization as a recommendation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported an NMAC while on short final while participating in Ground Control Approach training.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Manuals; Human Factors; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were cleared to fly the ILS PRM Approach. We selected the monitor frequency at the proper time. We kept hearing two different tower voices giving us instructions and it appeared one was on the correct tower frequency and the other on the monitor frequency. I queried the tower if they were giving instructions on both frequencies. I was advised they were. I told them I didn't think that was the purpose of the monitor frequency and was told they would look into it. Ironically; my First Officer said it happened to him on another flight recently. He inquired as to its legitimacy. He was told then; it would get looked into.I don't think that's the purpose for the monitor frequency; at least not according to the FOM. The monitor controller is to monitor deviations and respond accordingly to the crew; not give speed reductions and as happened to me earlier this fall; landing clearances on the monitor frequency. My understanding is they are to monitor the No Transgression Zone (NTZ) and issue instructions if that airspace is violated.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported receiving excessive transmissions on the PRM frequency.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Robinson R22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Was conducting a routine training flight and on departure experienced loss of engine power. Made a right turn crossing the extended center line of runway 15 at or below 100 feet AGL.  Executed a routine emergency landing on an unused adjacent taxiway.




Synopsis: R-22 Instructor pilot experiences an engine failure shortly after takeoff and is able to auto rotate to an unused taxiway at the departure airport.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Twin Bonanza 50
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on a straight in approach right engine failed due to fuel mismanagement. While switching tanks; I lost directional control and to flew into the restricted airspace. Despite having plenty of fuel the engine did not restart and I had to give up on that plan and feather the engine as we were running out of altitude. Flew very low over a few houses then started a slow climb. Flew to ZZZ landed. Restart on ground no problem.Learned to switch from aux tank to main fuel tank for landing much earlier.


Second narrative: Engine failure do to fuel management resulting in a deviation about a half mile into [restricted airspace] at a very low altitude.After feathering prop; trimming rudder and slowly climbing; got high enough to make a turn out of the restricted airspace.


Synopsis: Beechcraft D 50 pilot reported engine failure on approach.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared to land on runway 16L with Aircraft Y holding short of 16L waiting to depart. Another aircraft was crossing a 4.5NM final for 16L and Aircraft X was told to expedite to H4 (a high speed taxiway) to clear the runway and taxi to their gate. Aircraft Y was instructed to line up and wait on 16L. Aircraft X turned early at H5 but was observed clearing the runway; Aircraft X was then instructed to cross the hold-bar and contact Ground. Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff and issued a departure heading of 160 and they began their takeoff roll. Aircraft X then turned back onto the runway to take the exit at H4. Aircraft Y's takeoff clearance was cancelled and they were instructed to exit at H11; which they did; and were given new taxi instructions to return to runway 16L full length (H13). Aircraft X was issued a brasher statement from the Ground Controller and instructed to contact the Tower by telephone. The aircraft on final landed and Aircraft Y [was] then able to depart with no further issues.


Second narrative: I flew the ILS 16L to SLC. On landing roll out; Tower said to exit at H4. I gave the controls of the aircraft to the Captain; answered Tower; and we began to exit the runway. In the process of exiting; we saw 3 taxiways immediately branch out in front of us. We quickly assessed which branch was correct and turned left onto H4 as instructed. As we taxied onto H4; we heard Tower cancel an aircraft's takeoff clearance for Runway 16L. Once fully clear of the runway; we contacted ground and were instructed to call Tower to discuss a possible pilot deviation. If possible; I suggest not clearing an aircraft for takeoff until after the landing aircraft is fully clear of the runway.


Synopsis: SLC Local Controller and B737 flight crew reported a runway incursion due to taxiway confusion.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ABQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X checked onto departure and was instructed to 'Climb via SID'. The pilot then should climb via the SID up to FL200. This pilot was on the RDRNR3 Departure and leveled off at 100. There was confusion on the pilot's end citing clearance delivery stopped their climb to 100. Departure then instructed the pilot to 'Climb via SID top altitude FL200' and the pilot then understood to continue their climb. This is an instance of pilot confusion that repeats itself every day at ABQ TRACON. Aircraft on clearance should be instructed to 'Climb via SID' with no altitude restrictions; and if Approach needs an altitude restriction this will be given upon aircraft check in. -OR- All pilots need to be on the same page that when Departure clears an aircraft to 'Climb via SID' this deletes the clearance delivery restriction previously given.

Callback: Reporter stated that they would like the climb via phraseology fixed; it has been going on for about 5 years and still causes problems.



Synopsis: ABQ TRACON Controller reported pilot confusion relating to a 'Climb via SID; with an altitude to maintain that was not the top altitude.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZTL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Physiological - Other; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were level at FL310 when we were cleared to cross 40 miles south of VXV at FL240. I was pilot not flying and read back the clearance to ATC. The Captain set FL240 in the preselect and we verbally confirmed '240 set' and 'cross 40 miles south.' I then saw him put a fix in the FMS 40 miles south of VXV. At this point I was stopped paying close attention to the restriction because I felt that he had the ability to make the restriction so I didn't think much more about it. After several days of flying together; I had become complacent about monitoring the Captain as I had been impressed with how 'by the book' and sterile he keeps the cockpit.The Captain noticed when we were quite close that we hadn't started descending. He immediately initiated a rapid descent and advised ATC we couldn't meet the restriction. ATC responded with 'do your best.' I believe we crossed 40 south around FL260. It was our second day of waking up at 0430 to catch a 0500 van ride. We were flying with 30 minute turns with no time to catch our breath or eat. I was definitely starting to feel tired and hungry on the leg back to Cleveland. This certainly contributed to my lack of attention. Additionally I had flown the first two legs of the day; and relaxed myself a little as I was then pilot not flying for the last 2 legs of the day. All of these factors contributed to my lack of situational awareness. I failed to focus on the task at hand; and must strive to maintain vigilance as pilot not flying in the future.




Synopsis: An ERJ flight crew failed to initiate a timely descent and was unable to comply with an ATC crossing restriction. Fatigue and lack of nutrition were cited as contributing factors.