elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Although we had an ATC altitude crossing set in the FMC; HOGGS at FL180; the aircraft didn't start down at the desired point from FL280. I took over in level change at the ATC assigned crossover speed; 290 KTS and descended. With the tailwind we needed increased speed; got that approved from ATC and descended close to the barber pole. As we approached the barber pole I disconnected the auto pilot and hand flew the descent. When I disconnected the autopilot the speed momentarily equaled or exceeded Vmo and we had an overspeed warning. The warning lasted for approximately three seconds before we slowed to below the placarded speed. We were given relief from the speed restriction from ATC (290 KTS) and as we approached HOGGS we switched ATC frequencies and the NY Center now assigned us a speed and not the altitude crossing even though we were in the turn over HOGGS and leveling at FL180. Being a bit more aware of the tailwind in the descent and catching the VNAV not catching the profile would have avoided this. During this flight I realized the First Officer was brand new to the company. He had 65 hours as a new hire 727 First Officer (direct into the right seat) but was then furloughed 12 years and was now a new First Officer on the 737. We spent a good portion of the flight discussing a lot of things he had never seen before. It was actually great to have someone so eager [to learn] and I was more than willing to show him as it is nice to have a First Officer well versed with the things many of us got as flight engineers and first officers when there was more time spent in a classroom environment. In retrospect; when we STARTED the descent out of FL390; we should have moved into the 'descent phase' and ended the classroom circle stuff. The overspeed was [my entire] fault as I was the pilot flying. It was my first trip back after 3 weeks of vacation. I'm sure that played a part in the event.




Synopsis: A B737-800 flight crew; distracted by informal training and indoctrination of the new First Officer; failed to note the jet had not begun a programmed descent in a timely manner. During the hasty descent a short duration Vmo overspeed occurred.
Date: 201908
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During Flight at cruise from ZZZ to ZZZ1; I noticed on my screen printer that NEF (Non-essential Equipment Furnishings) 33-XX had been applied to Aircraft X. This was only applied during flight and therefore not on the release and also not on the ACARS to amend to the release. I recorded the screen printer messages in the record history at [time]; approximately the same time that I noticed it to be added in the system. I contacted [Maintenance Control] and they informed me of a new procedure where Line Maintenance has the ability to add certain NEF items without communication with [Maintenance Control] entirely. The maintenance employee in ZZZ added this NEF during flight and gave me no option to add it to a release or send it to the crew to amend the flight release.The cause is ZZZ Maintenance not [entering] in the system quick enough. [I suggest] better communication between [Maintenance Control] and Line Maintenance in our hubs to make sure NEFs are added in time for Dispatch to add them either through ACARS or a new revision to a release to keep the flight legal. I suggest removing this new procedure for Line Maintenance adding NEFs and give the sole responsibility to [Maintenance Control].




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported being out of the loop when Maintenance added a non-essential maintenance note to an aircraft in-flight.
Date: 201711
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGB.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LGB
ATC / advisory: Tower LGB
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: We had just switched over to tower frequency and received a TCAS traffic advisory quickly followed by a Climb RA. I disconnected the Autopilot and autothrottles and before I could start any escape action the TCAS said we were clear of conflict. I instructed the FO to let Tower know we had a Resolution Advisory. The tower first wanted us to go around however the FO quickly relayed we were still in a safe position to land. I corrected the airspeed and ILS parameters and flew a normal ILS slightly above glideslope for the Noise parameters at LGB. We landed uneventfully and taxied to park.LGB is known for light VFR aircraft in the vicinity of the airport. We flew the approach and landing to the standard runway i.e. runway 30. We have no control of the light civilian traffic in the area. The LGB airport needs to make all pilots aware of the conflict areas of Runway 30.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported receiving a RA on approach to LGB Runway 30 from GA traffic.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for the visual approach. The Captain states 'I'm going to show you how to do a real visual approach.' He then makes a steep descent as well as a steep turn from just inside the final approach fix. He instructs me to put the gear down and flaps 30. At this time we were receiving numerous aural warnings; 'bank angle; glide slope; pull up; descent rate.' I am pretty confident that he did over-speed the flaps; because we were way too fast on the approach (approximately 210 KTS.) I mentioned to the Captain that we are too high and I did not think we would make it; however I neglected to tell him to go-around. At about 10 FT; he called for flaps 45; and before landing check. I did not have enough time to complete it; because we were in the landing flare. We landed with full flaps and the flight spoilers deployed. I was approached by a dead heading pilot at the end of the flight. He mentioned to me that we scared him and that he felt that the approach was unsafe. On my walk around I noticed that the flight spoilers were still deployed on the Captains side. I told the Captain. He then turned on the hydraulics and corrected the issue.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported they experienced an unstabilized approach.  Reporter stated the Captain was demonstrating how a real visual approach should be accomplished. During the approach numerous aural warnings; including bank angle; glide slope; pull up and descent rate were heard.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Military
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOA
ATC / advisory: Center ZOA
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X requested to turn back to their departure airport due to a problem. The aircraft stated they had engine problems and an issue maintaining airspeed. They requested specific routing back to the airport but the requested route probed a conflict with a active airspace Warning Area. As I amended the routing to evaluate alternatives; the aircraft also reported a descent to 19;000 ft. Reviewing the route options with my CIC (Controller in Charge); we determined direct ZZZZZ [fix] direct ZZZZZ1 [fix] was the most direct route back. However; this also conflicted with another active airspace. The urgency of the pilot action descending and requesting the turn around necessitated a clearance. Despite the active airspace; the routing appeared to be the best for the aircraft and was issued. As additional information was being gathered regarding the situation; the CICs were briefing for shift change. It is my understanding that the conflict with airspace was briefed to the incoming CIC. Several minutes later; I was briefing the next controller and realized I had not received any further input on the routing. I asked the new CIC if the emergency and airspace conflict had been coordinated. They then contacted out OMIC and TMU to coordinate with aircraft within airspace.At this time Aircraft X was at least 20 (possibly 50) minutes from the airspace boundary.I was advised to submit this report over concern for a potential airspace violation. However; appears that the controller taking over; omic; and cic correctly continued coordination after I and the previous CIC were off duty. Aircraft X did fly through a corner of airspace but was given frequencies for broadcasting to aircraft in the airspace as well as coordination done by management and TMU. Obviously decision making time is limited with an aircraft in distress but I do not feel that the routing was inappropriate given the circumstances and multiple potential airspace conflicts. The only recommendations would be improved coordination between Controllers; Supervisors; and Operations Managers. This occurred during a shift change and coordination was slowed as a result.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported vectoring an aircraft through a warning area during a diversion.
Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D BFI
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on a vector for 13R approach to BFI; configured Flaps 1; speed 190 KTS with SEA approach when an unidentified aircraft appeared on TCAS 2.5 miles ahead.  Approach had just given us a vector towards this 'pop-up TCAS target at our altitude' and we queried Approach if they were aware of the traffic.  At that moment an unidentified voice on the radio said; 'I just turned on my transponder.'  At that moment TCAS advised to monitor vertical speed then told us to 'Climb; Climb' and the Co-Pilot immediately disengaged the automation and followed the TCAS VSI out of the red arc while simultaneously applying full power.  I immediately notified ATC we were in a TCAS climb.  After passing over the aircraft at approximately 100-200 FT (according to the TCAS readout); TCAS announced we were 'Clear of Conflict' and we advised ATC who re-cleared us to our original vector and altitude for the approach.




Synopsis: Large transport aircraft being vectored for approach to BFI; responded to a TCAS RA and experienced an NMAC with 'pop-up' traffic that had just activated the aircraft's transponder.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: These two aircraft were deviating south around a cell of weather; the ZZZ aircraft was in front of the ZZZ1 aircraft by a couple of miles and diverging. I was planning on descending the ZZZ1 as he was under the ZZZ and stepping the ZZZ aircraft down under the ZZZ1. Instead I descended the ZZZ aircraft to 320 and showed the altitude in the data block; immediately as I unkeyed I realized my mistake and told the ZZZ aircraft at FL410 to maintain FL410. He repeated my instruction and the data block never showed him leaving FL410. A couple seconds later the ZZZ aircraft reported that he had descended about 100 feet or so; but was now back up at FL410. I said Roger; the data block never showed any altitude other than FL410. Conflict alert never went off.I had been on position at the same sector as that is my only R side; a long time that day with weather deviations. Staffing has been kept purposely low due to COVID 19 and social distancing; however; staffing has been kept so low that we are working 1.5-2 hours on position every time which is tiring; especially during the summer with weather deviations. Breaks can only give you so much recovery towards the end of the day when it is constant issues with weather. Deviations are much more taxing mentally and sector XX is a small sector without the room to operate outside of pre-determined routes and procedures.Being a developmental with only one sector to return to is also mentally taxing. There is no coming back to a different change of pace; but just the same complex sector again and again. And with training frozen no hope of continuing on the horizon while we continue to work with skeleton crews and traffic and complexity continue to ramp up.




Synopsis: Center Controller reported an airborne conflict and cited staffing levels as a contributing factor.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Reporter organization: Government
Human factors: Confusion; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: R6302A airspace was active SFC-30;000 FT on the ZHU-55-2d form showing 06/1300-2359 on the sheet. When I received a call from the Supervisor; I misinterpreted this to mean that the airspace went to its normal altitude of SFC-12;000 FT as of the time of the phone call. As a result; 2 aircraft transited the airspace below 30;000 FT. There was considerable weather in the area and I was helping others in the unit with weather input. It was a super quick glance at the sheet and because of the difference between Zulu time and local time was easily misread. The additional duties/distractions because of the weather and traffic also reduced the focus needed to prevent these types of misinterpretations.




Synopsis: ZHU Controller described an unauthorized entry into restricted airspace resulting from a hurried glance at the active time; confusing Zulu and Local time. Additional weather distractions/responsibilities were listed as causal factors.
Date: 201208
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-400 and 400 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During initial cruise with fuel in the center tank; the left tank had 2;000 LBS more than the right tank. Engine fuel flow and the PROG page 2 showed both engines using the same amount of fuel. The QRH Fuel Configuration procedure steps 3 and 4 setup the crossfeed but there is no step to turn off the center tank pumps. The center tank pumps will over pressure and prevent the crossfeed from occurring. This type of fuel imbalance is not an isolated occurrence on this type aircraft.

Callback: The Reporter stated that the normal fuel imbalance procedure is completed from memory. In this event; an FAA Inspector was in the jump seat; so when the Fuel Config annunciated; the First Officer referenced the QRH where two checklists were found. One was the Fuel Config and the second Fuel Crossfeed. The Fuel Config Checklist was followed but the crew soon realized that because the center tanks contained fuel and the pumps were ON; the checklist could not balance the tanks because the center pump overrode the wing tank pumps. So the Captain used his emergency authority and turned the center tank pumps OFF until the wing tanks were balanced. He later discovered that another Checklist in the Supplemental Manual covered this situation so he suggests including a step in the QRH Fuel Config procedure which references center tank pumps in the event they are ON and need to be turned OFF in order to keep the aircraft with limits.



Synopsis: A pilot reported that his aircraft's center tank fuel pumps overrode wing tank fuel pumps so when a wing tank fuel imbalance occurred no procedure was available to turn the center tank pumps OFF to balance wing tanks.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Weather elements / visibility: clear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 103
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: I was on a sight seeing flight going up through Greer Valley towards the mountain flats of Big Lake in eastern Arizona. I pre-flighted; checked weight and balance and ran performance factors and density altitude. WNL takeoff and climb to Greer Valley which is west and south of D68. I spiraled up altitude in Greer Valley to 9;400 FT. I then proceeded up the valley to get up to the area I wanted to see. When near the top of the valley I stopped climbing and hit a 'sink hole of air.' I continued up the valley as there was no place to turn around and saw approaching terrain. Fearing I would run out of airspace and hit the ground I saw a v cut to my left and took it. While crossing a road I estimate I came within 6-8 feet of ground and then I [nearly] hit something which I believe was a snow road reflector post.My concern is I did not do a flight briefing although I was aware of performance factors. I believe the near hit was preventable by using better judgment on performance factors and being more generous on my safety factors. I will also always get a flight briefing even for local flights in VFR conditions.




Synopsis: A Ercoupe pilot flying out of a high altitude Arizona airport intending to sight see over even higher terrain found himself barely able to avoid ground obstacles while in mountainous terrain and unable to maintain altitude.