elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Troubleshooting; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: At the time indicated the INW RCAG site experienced some sort of 'glitch' that caused constant background static on the Main and Standby receivers of R67. At the time that this occurred; the Controller was working approximately 10-13 aircraft (Monitor Alert Parameter; MAP17) and the position was staffed with a Radar Assist (RA) as well. The BUEC receiver located at P14 was out of service (OTS) as well. The static sounds like a stuck mic and it is difficult for controllers in that situation to verify receipt of control instructions. As a temporary fix; I was able to get 134.32 from R43 and have R67 try to get aircraft to that frequency. Due to range of that frequency that is only a short term fix to help in the moment. I was then able to combine R45 and R67 after all traffic was separated and comms verified. The reason for this report is that the problem is not an isolated occurrence. It happens several times a day with 133.92 and 128.12 (both on INW). The BUEC for 128.12 is working however. When this issue occurs; we FLMs call the SOC and comm resets the site. This sometimes corrects the issue for a period of time; however; it is not a permanent fix. It is unsafe for the controllers and aircraft to be put in a position where the frequency suffers a failure on what seems like a routine basis. (This was the 2nd occurrence today...the first just prior to my shift) At a minimum; the BUEC outage needs to be fixed ASAP. The INW RCAG site needs to be inspected to determine the cause of this issue. If it is not fixable then a longer term solution will need to be found. The other viable frequency in terms of sector coverage is 135.32 which is assigned to R92.




Synopsis: ZAB FLM reports of radio problems in various sectors that appears to be going on daily.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Gusty wind; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Recent wind check was 3 kts. Was on my takeoff roll and the plane started to drift off the centerline on RWY XX. Tried to correct with rudder. Realized it wasn't rudder control; but rather a cross wind. Tried to correct with aileron; but overcorrected. Plane began to fishtail a little; so I throttled back completely and aborted takeoff. Was able to regain directional control after momentary loss; but did run off the runway. Did not use breaks on the grass; and instead steered to avoid any lights and came to a stop. Turned off onto RWY XY/XZ and taxied back. No one was injured; and no apparent damage. Wouldn't expect any damage; but still going to have the landing gear looked at tomorrow.




Synopsis: Pilot reported losing control of aircraft due to crosswind on landing resulting in a runway excursion.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prefacing this with: Paperwork issue; nothing damaged; no one hurt; no incidents occurred; strictly paperwork.Earlier in the year a student and his instructor working at the same flight school as me had worked together for months prior. At some point the student was in training and had been soloed by his previous instructor at this time. The coronavirus pandemic occurred at this time and that instructor elected to no longer continue working. I had picked this student up to continue training. The student told me he soloed and had been soloing until I picked him up as a student. I provided the student with training and re-currency training until I found him proficient in the same plane. The student mentioned he had his student pilot certificate medical and government issued photo ID and I took his word for it. He was acting PIC and he knew the rules so I endorsed him for his additional 90 days and sent him out of the office. I took record of the endorsement and at that point he went to work with another instructor at our school. After a few weeks the student was about to solo again; I went to him and asked to see his documents as a safety precaution. I found out he did not have his student pilot certificate and lied to me about having it originally. I told the student he was no longer allowed to solo. My boss and supervising instructor has now talked to the student and is working with him to figure out where or if he has his certificate and how to go about this next. The underlying issue was the student lying to me about having it when he did not because he was so eager to solo. Trusting the older flight instructor who said the student has his certificate; and me not physically verifying where the students documents were. It is not currently clear where the student pilot certificate was and at this time the chief instructor is working on finding it.




Synopsis: Flight instructor reported a new student to him did not have a student pilot solo certificate as the student had said.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MMU.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach and under vectors for the ILS 23 into MMU; ATC issued a descent from 3;000 to 2;000 FT. We read back and selected 2;000 in the altitude alerter. Using vertical speed; I dialed down our descent to 1;000 FPM. At approximately 2;300 FT we received a 'Caution Terrain' then almost immediately a 'Whoop Whoop Pull Up.' I disengaged the autopilot and manually climbed the aircraft to approximately 2;500 FT. The GPWS warnings stopped and we queried ATC as to our assigned altitude and he responded that we should be at 3;000 FT. He issued a climb to maintain 3;000 FT and we complied. Nothing further was said. We landed without further incident. The Approach Controller was moderately busy and our task load was quite high in anticipation of landing. It is quite possible that we could have answered a descent issued to another aircraft; or that he got our callsign confused with another aircraft on the same frequency; but it is my firm belief that we did answer a call for us. Either way; I believe that we did react correctly to the situation and did query ATC to the situation which caused the GPWS warning and recovered to a safe altitude and proceeded without anything else being said. The Controller never asked us to call or indicated that we were in violation of any clearances issued.




Synopsis: After reading back a clearance to descend from 3;000 FT to 2;000 FT during radar vectors for approach at MMU; a CE750 Captain reports receiving a GPWS terrain warning and initiating a climb. ATC indicates the aircraft should be at 3;000 FT.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Eurocopter AS 350/355/EC130 - Astar/Twinstar/Ecureuil
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/General
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the normal 30day/100hour hydraulic fluid change; while system was draining; I removed and serviced [the oxygen system] bottle and reinstalled. I then finished the servicing of the hydraulic system. I then signed off the pre-completed logbook page for the hydraulic system service. The pilot did the inspection of the hydraulic system and signed the log page. We then proceeded to move the helicopter out of the hangar. I had forgotten to mention the servicing of the [oxygen bottle] to the pilot and I did not remember to write up a discrepancy for the servicing of the [oxygen]. The next time the helicopter flew the crew had a warning on the ventilator of low pressure. The ventilator and attaching lines were checked; all good. The pilot checked the [oxygen] bottle and found the one feed line not connected.




Synopsis: The Maintenance Technician did not record an oxygen discrepancy on an AS350. He also did not complete the bottle installation after servicing; which led to a low pressure condition.
Date: 202108
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Aircraft component: Cabin Crew Seat
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Unable to loosen/tighten any Flight Attendant (FA) jump-seat harness on this aircraft.  Extremely unsafe.  We need 'one-click buckle' and 'one-twist release' like we have on almost every other plane; except this one; and I imagine other Airbuses as well.  Potential for FAs to not be buckled in as per FARs and potential for FA's to not easily exit jump-seat during normal and emergency situations. Recommend inspection and replacement of all FA jump-seat harnesses that are like the one [on other aircraft] to prevent potential unfortunate events from happening. Informed downline FAs to notify Captain.  Unsure if all harnesses replaced.  Other aircraft affected as well.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported the FA harness on this particular A319 jump-seat is very difficult to fasten/release and is different than other aircraft.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The neighboring Center called for a hand off. There was a VFR aircraft flashing at us that was close to the boundary; so I picked up the line and said RADAR. He didn't give a call sign in the coordination. The RADAR pulled up a target that was in on the boundary; and it was flashing to Sector 21. The RADAR /ok the Data Block; and the aircraft checked on. The RADAR flashed the aircraft to 86; looking for higher. Sector 86 dialed in and said there was no flight plan information; just as we had made the discovery there was no flight plan information stored in the NAS. Point out was made to T45 with an explanation that it would be a few minutes before he would climb; we were trying to get flight plan information put in. The aircraft had reached FL230; and was requesting FL280. I unplugged from the D-Side; plugged into the Sector 84 D-Side; and passed flight plan information to the T43 Sector so we could get the aircraft climbing. I recommend that when calling a sector for a hand off; you use the call sign for identification. I realize I could have asked who; however coincidentally there was a VFR aircraft flashing to us 2 minutes from the boundary; and I assumed it was that aircraft. I also recommend that when initiating a hand off; address it to the correct sector; and don't wait until the aircraft is 30 seconds from receiving controller's airspace before coordination.




Synopsis: Enroute D-Side Controller described a confused hand off event when accepting RADAR on a VFR target when in fact the hand off involved an IFR aircraft requesting climb; the event resulting in an airspace incursion.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On descent on STAR into ZZZ; we were told to slow down to accommodate traffic ahead. As I was decelerating the aircraft through 270 to 250 (assigned) knots; the aircraft started a substantial roll. AUTOPILOT AND AUTOTHROTTLE WERE ON. I disengaged the autopilot to hand fly; and fully stowed the speed brakes. Despite speed brakes stowed; the aircraft rolling moment was quite different. Rudder ratio light came on a few seconds later. Ran the checklist; simultaneously we further reviewed the situation. Rudder and roll moment had a peculiar (bungee) feel to it.  Configured early and landed uneventfully. Had CFR equipment inspect the aircraft on landing; condition and fluids issues of at all. None found visually by CFR CREWS. Jump seater was put to use and was great assistance.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: Boeing 757 flight crew reported an uncommanded roll during descent with the autopilot engaged. The Rudder Ratio light illuminated a few seconds later.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A90.TRACON, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E A90
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On arrival to BOS and expecting the ROBUC3 to Runway 33L; approaching ROBUC we were told to expect Runway 22L. We asked the Controller to confirm Runway 22L and again read that back. This changes the routing and is also on a different arrival page. We configured the FMC for the new arrival and reviewed the plate. I believe we were level at FL190. We were switched to the approach Controller who then said to expect Runway 33L. Again we asked about the change back and confirmed the new Runway. The radio was extremely busy and it was difficult to tell the Controller about the change. The new Controller was not aware that we were given ROBUC3 to Runway 22L previously. I believe the first Controller issued that clearance in error. We again changed the FMS for the new arrival routing and extended the speed rake to meet the altitude restrictions. We also tried to convey our problem about the change to the Controller but the radio was simply too busy. We crossed PROVI well above 11;000 feet and missed the hard restriction at JOODY by 1;000-1;500 feet. Unable to get relief due to the busy radio. We then met all of the following restrictions and landed on Runway 33L uneventfully. I believe the first Controller issued the clearance for Runway 22L in error. The ATIS was reporting landing on Runway 33L. That is what we expected which is why we asked for confirmation. Seemed like a very late change; but not unheard of. In BOS the fact that the two arrivals have different routing and on different approach plates makes it difficult to change especially when we were already inbound to ROBUC. The late change back to our original runway caused us delay in descending and the busy radios made it impossible to communicate our need for relief on the hard altitude at JOODY. ATC must listen carefully to aircrew read back and confirm that the clearance is conveyed properly. Also; descend via clearance is far better than step downs on arrival and the aircrew can plan better for the arrival. This small change from Runway 22L to Runway 33L on this arrival leads to a heavy workload in the cockpit. Changes that late should be avoided.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported receiving multiple approach clearances to different runways.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLC
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was in Canada's airspace squawking the wrong code of XXXX. Code XXXX was assigned to Aircraft Y who was already in my airspace. When I went to track up Aircraft X I did a 'track pick XXXX'. This moved the track from where Aircraft Y was and moved it up into Canada's airspace to the XXXX code there. I was busy and did not realize that this track was moved from the actual Aircraft Y who was approximately 175 miles south of Aircraft X. I realized that this is the wrong call sign and drop the track. Since it was over 150 miles away the track did not go back to where Aircraft Y actually was. I started a track for Aircraft X and when he came over I assigned him his code of XXXZ and it paired. Aircraft Y flew through my airspace without a track for over 100 miles without me even noticing it. As the intruder target approached the next sector they happened to notice it and started a track and initialized the inquiry as to what happened.Somehow a track should not be allowed to be moved off an existing target to a target in Canada's airspace and if it does it should be able to go back to its original target once dropped from the wrong target.




Synopsis: Salt Lake Center Controller reported routing confusion due to two aircraft using the same squawk code.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Snow; 1.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 20FJF/20C/20D/20E/20F
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: After landing; aircraft experienced poor to nil braking action. Forecast was for light snow. No braking action reports or runway condition reports had been issued. Aircraft ran off the end of the runway and stopped in the grass. There was no damage to the aircraft or airport property. From the air; the runway looked to have a thin layer of snow with pavement visible underneath. On the ground; it was discovered that the contamination was snow on a thin layer of ice.




Synopsis: Falcon 20 Captain reported landing in light snow to discover nil braking action. The aircraft stopped past the end of the runway with no damage.