elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon contacting Departure Control after takeoff; we were cleared to 16;000 feet.  We were vectored west as usual. Climbing through about 14;500 feet; ATC told us to descend back to 14;000 feet saying he had given us a clearance to stop at 14;000 feet.  We complied. We were never given a clearance to stop at 14;000 feet. The traffic passed a little bit later and we continued on without incident. The frequency was very congested with people stepping all over each other. If the Controller did give us a clearance to stop at 14;000 feet; we never heard; nor acknowledged it.


Second narrative: Believe we were already handed off to ZZZ Center. On initial contact with them they cleared us to climb and maintain 16;000 feet MSL.  Passing 14;500 feet; the Controller asked us to return to 14;000 feet MSL as he asked us to.  The Pilot Monitoring stated that we never received that clearance and were climbing to 16;000 feet MSL as previously cleared.  The Controller then stated that we had conflicting traffic and must go down to 14;000 feet MSL.  I immediately leveled off the aircraft on the initial call and then proceeded to return to 14;000 feet MSL once the situation was clarified.  The aircraft reached 15;100 feet MSL during the transition back to a descent.  I am confident we never received the call to stop the climb at 14;000 feet and am sure we never responded to such a call.  The radios were busy and ATCs initial call to level off may have been blocked by other transmissions.The Crew reacted appropriately with the information we had received during the situation. It has become apparent that ATC Personnel are working multiple frequencies since the reduction in flying due to COVID.  In my opinion; the flying is returning faster than the ATC manning and causing some increased ATC workload and some communication errors.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported ATC requested they descend back to their cleared altitude of 14;000 during departure.  The flight crew stated they never heard ATC cleared them to 14;000 feet and cited frequency congestion as a contributing factor.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: PFD
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure upon entering IMC at approximately 600 FT MSL; heading information was lost due to the heading indicator becoming inoperative on the PFD on the G1000 display. I still had full use of the magnetic compass; and I elected to inform ATC of the malfunction; and request vectors back and to execute the localizer approach. I initially requested a no-gyro approach; however I ultimately elected to navigate using the magnetic compass. Approximately ten minutes into the flight; the heading indicator returned and I was able to use it in conjunction with the magnetic compass to successfully execute the instrument approach. No one was injured; neither myself nor my one passenger; the aircraft was not damaged; and no other persons or property was damaged.




Synopsis: C182 pilot experiences loss of heading information in the G1000 PFD shortly after takeoff in IMC. The magnetic compass is used to navigate back to the departure airport and the PFD heading begins functioning normally prior to landing.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying with a student on a local training sortie in the east practice area squawking VFR at approximately 3;000 FT in class E airspace while monitoring Tower frequency and performing required maneuvers with said student. While clearing for a power-on stall we looked out and observed a parachutist approximately 700 FT away co-altitude. I immediately took the aircraft and turned away from the parachutist with a 180 degree turn. Upon rolling out and flying for approximately two minutes to clear the area; we began a clearing turn for a power-on stall and saw the jump aircraft rapidly peeling away from our 6 o'clock at approximately 300 FT. I took the aircraft again and did an evasive maneuver from this close-in threat. After that maneuver and clearing the area again we finished our profile and landed. Upon landing I understand that the jump plane had flown close enough to get my tail number (well within 500 FT) without communicating to me; so that he could call and voice a complaint over my presence during his jump. There were no NOTAMs regarding the jump activity that day and there was no mention of it on the Tower frequency I was monitoring.




Synopsis: C172 instructor with student reports sighting a skydiver under canopy in the practice area and turns away. A few minutes later the jump plane is detected in loose formation; attempting to obtain a tail number. There were no NOTAMs.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We received MDW ATIS information which contained wind information being VRBL4G16. When requesting [landing] performance data via ACARS; all runways were noted as out of tailwind limit. We requested Dispatch to get us actual wind values from MDW Tower. Not long after Dispatch returned to us with wind values; MDW changed their ATIS to reflect actual wind. I ended up requesting new information and the rest of the flight was uneventful. Raise awareness with the FAA Controllers of this issue. Captain told me he encountered the same situation the previous day.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported ATIS winds of VRB4G16; which produced an out of limits tailwind condition for all runways.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB-505 / Phenom 300
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain/PF (Pilot Flying) requested 2000 ft. be selected in altimeter for the departure. After takeoff and climbing through 1000 ft.; PF requested autopilot to be engaged. After engaging autopilot and approaching 1500 ft.; I (Pilot Monitoring) noticed that the climb rate was not decreasing and we would break the mandatory crossing restriction. I then noticed that VNAV was not armed for the climb in order to capture 1500 ft. I notified PF of the climb above 1500 and also noticed he was fighting with the controls. I then noticed the trim had been at full nose UP; notified PF of this and he disconnected the autopilot and manually trimmed the pressure off and hand flew from that point on. For a brief moment I saw a CAS message that included '...TRIM...' but was distracted by ATC and when I looked back for the CAS message it had disappeared. After brief discussion; we both agreed that advising ATC and returning to [departure airport] was the best idea.




Synopsis: EMB-505 F/O reported returning to departure airport after experiencing stabilizer trim issues.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: GPWS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying over the hills under ZZZ Class Bravo Airspace in IMC and Terrain Awareness (EPGWS) activated with a 'Terrain Terrain Pull Up' aural command. I clicked the TOGA (Takeoff/Go-Around) button and began a climb and briefly entered visual conditions with some terrain in sight. We advised ZZZ [TRACON] of our climb. ZZZ [TRACON] was perplexed as he stated that the Minimum Vectoring Altitude in our sector was 3;200 [feet] MSL. We were instructed to maintain 3;500 [feet] MSL and the flight continued without incident.Event due to possible sensitive Terrain Awareness Warning System/EGPWS. The crew treated the event as a terrain threat an acted accordingly.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported climbing after receiving an EGPWS warning that appeared to be false.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Aircraft component: ILS/VOR
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: We were on the Tammy Arrival and were directed to proceed to BUDEE (IAF for ILS Runway 09). En route to BUDEE (about 10-15 miles from the fix) we were assigned to intercept the localizer to Runway 9 and report the field in sight. Selected VOR/LOC on FCP; shortly thereafter the aircraft started turning right and showed LOC captured. As pilot not flying I told the Captain it was a false capture and to roll out. He selected HDG SEL and we corrected back to BUDEE. We selected LOC when closer to BUDEE and it responded correctly. I informed ATC of a false localizer intercept and they passed on that information to the following aircraft. When our automation failed us; we saw the deviation and deautomated to comply with clearance. We nonetheless turned off course to the right (approximately 20 degrees) due to the time necessary to detect the error and correct the automation.I have spoken with other pilots about Runway 9 false localizer intercepts. One other pilot indicated that this has happened to him and he suggested it had to do with Tunica Airport. Primary prevention should be proper inspection of ground localizer equipment. If Tunica is affecting approaches to Runway 9 we should be able to fix that from a ground based NAVAID standpoint. It wouldn't hurt to add a warning to the approach plate if this continues to occur.




Synopsis: An Airbus flight crew encountered a false localizer intercept when cleared for the ILS Runway 9 at MEM.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight attendants entered the aircraft first. I came on board and thought that the plane stunk very bad. I couldn't imagine having passengers smell this aircraft. The Flight Attendant A said that it smelt like dirty shoes. Then Flight Attendant B said that she thought that it smelled like possible toxic fumes. Flight Attendant C said she couldn't smell anything but she was stuffed up. We deplaned and stayed in the jetway. I called the gate agent to tell her. She said that she was going to call the Tower. Pilots weren't there yet. They arrived approximately 20-25 minutes later. During the 20 minutes catering had arrived. Between the L1 & L4 door being opened there was a breeze through the aircraft. First Officer arrived and we told what was happening. She said Gate Agent told him. Then the Captain arrived; same thing; Gate Agent told him. We waited on jetway and then I went on board to ask him if he could smell the odor. He said no and that his aircraft is going to ZZZ and we needed to decide if we were getting off. We were shocked. We had no idea that his response was going to be so mean. We called for a Supervisor. We told the Supervisor that we were willing to go if the plane would at least be checked out by a mechanic. Supervisor said that the Captain was in charge and he has final say. We were again surprised. We told her that the Captain did not smell what we smelt. It didn't seem to matter. Then the Captain motioned with his arm and thumb and said 'Your out of here!' to us. We were shocked. Its almost as if what we experienced didn't matter. We were told by the supervisor we would receive a point; etc. We all worried about getting in trouble. Then again; the Captain said we were done. Flight Attendant B and I went to get our luggage. I was humiliated and belittled. He was horrible to us. Flight Attendant A stayed on board because he thought he would lose his job. Flight Attendant B and myself went to Flight Service.Why couldn't we have had a mechanic check out the aircraft?




Synopsis: A321 Flight Attendant reported a communication breakdown between flight attendant crew and flight crew regarding a fumes event during pre-flight.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was picking up my aircraft from ZZZ airport after an extensive annual. The annual was more drawn out due to the virus thing. I paid for the service; conducted an extensive pre-flight; started the aircraft and prepared to taxi. I noted an aircraft departing from the same area ahead of me received the same clearance I normally get as taxi Runway X via Romeo; Alpha. I continued with the engine warm-up and checked each item paying close attention to the aircraft's response; again due to the extensive annual inspection. I received my own taxi clearance that was for Taxiway Uniform; which is a parallel taxiway to Alpha. The first taxiway to turn right to the assigned runway is Alpha. There were no other aircraft anywhere on the airport taxiways or ramps except for the one ahead of me. That aircraft was now at the runway and was at the hold short line for Runway X. I then instinctively turned onto Alpha; not initially realizing that I had been instructed to take the next right at Uniform. I continued checking braking action; steering; monitoring the engines performance and then realized I was about 200 feet down Alpha not on the correct taxiway. The next taxiway was Victor; which connects Alpha and Uniform; so I turned onto Victor and right onto Uniform; the correct taxiway. I believe I caused this problem because I was preoccupied with the aircraft's condition and did not pay close enough attention to the taxi instructions. The fact that the airport was nearly deserted contributed to my complacency; as well as the fact that I had flown this complicated twin only once in the past 6 months. I did write down the taxi instruction and had a copy of the airport diagram in front of me. I was both surprised and disappointed that I had made this error.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a taxiway incursion; citing distraction with aircraft condition and lack of recent flying as contributing factors.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On a long final. Captain's Autopilot disengaged without his input. VOR/LOC mode was initially selected; but we were re-cleared the ILS (There had been a ship in the harbor). Neither Autopilot would engage. Tried to engage the Approach mode without success. Tried to re-engage the VOR/LOC mode without success. Captain elected to Go Around. On radar downwind; I tried to 'boot strap' the FMC to either side to see if we could get one of the Autopilots back. We also reviewed the Raw Data approach checklist in the QRH. On final; we were slowed and configured; but not having any luck with selecting an approach mode. Approach control wanted us to speed up (they were sequencing in a Airbus 330; I think). The Captain elected to declare an emergency due to our decreasing fuel options and very odd instrumentation issues. We were using raw data; but the Captain only had vertical command steering bars. I had vertical and lateral even though we never were able to select an approach mode. I asked if he would like for me to fly the approach and he gave me the airplane to land. The landing was uneventful. Throughout this entire situation; we did not have a master caution light; and no system degradation indications in the cockpit. In hindsight; The Captain could have given me the aircraft earlier which would have let him have time to brief the passengers and flight attendants. This airplane had a previous history of PSEU [Proximity Sensor Electronic Unit] (primarily Radar Altimeter) issue. The mechanic on the ground in ZZZ told us afterwards 18 faults showed in the system.


Second narrative: Approaching outer marker; ATC request we increase our speed. As we were in a stable approach and were experiencing flight instrument issues; I declined the instruction and declared an emergency. We continued the approach and landed uneventfully.


Synopsis: During approach; B737-800 flight crew experiences autopilot and flight director anomalies and the autopilot cannot be reconnected. The Captain elected to go-around. On the second approach autopilots and approach mode can still not be selected but the First Officer had a functioning flight director and flies the approach to landing.