elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A11.TRACON, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ANC
ATC / advisory: TRACON A11
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Training in progress on Final West with developmental who is close to qualification. Trainee issued a 040 vector to Aircraft X to intercept Runway 7L localizer and descend to 4;000; a second [aircraft] was on a south downwind for Runway 7R. Aircraft X was instructed to reduce speed to 210 knots; and issued traffic on primary only traffic (no altitude indicated); '12 o'clock; 4 miles; southbound; altitude unknown'.  Aircraft X joined the 7L localizer and reported they had the no-transponder aircraft in sight and it appeared to be a Cessna and passed them by 500 feet. Aircraft X was issued traffic on the 7R [traffic]; which was subsequently reported in sight; and also advised they would be filing a near miss on the no-transponder aircraft.Non-transponder equipped aircraft are common and plentiful in and around Anchorage TRACON's airspace; and mostly operate low-level; below 1;500 feet AGL. This incident would not have happened if either (1) the non-transponder equipped aircraft were talking to us; (2) the aircraft had an operational mode C transponder; or (3) ANC's class C airspace extended out to protect the Runway 7L/7R final approach courses (and Runway 33/15 departure/arrival corridor). This will continue to happen until the airspace around ANC is changed to protect from VFR aircraft not talking to ATC; with or without a transponder; from flying through the final approach course.




Synopsis: A11 Controller reported turning an aircraft on to final with traffic ahead for another runway. Additional traffic was issued to a non-transponder equipped aircraft. Pilot observed both aircraft and advised reported that they would be fling a Near Mid Air Collision report on the unknown aircraft.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ONT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: I was working Ontario arrivals sector. It was east traffic. Flows are different than normal west configuration. I was getting arrivals from Center on frequency 127.0. I should have switched aircraft over to 125.5 as they transitioned my airspace. I had a few arrivals go in without the frequency switch so I felt that it was okay leaving the aircraft on 127.0. Aircraft X was given a turn to base heading 360 to maintain 3000 feet. The Pilot read it back and made the turn. About 30 seconds later I gave Aircraft X a turn to final and the approach clearance. Aircraft X does not respond. I tried multiple times but could not get through. I was able to use an aircraft to aircraft relay to get Aircraft X on a turn away from terrain and to have them change to my frequency 125.5. When I was able to reach Aircraft X I issued a low altitude alert and turned them south to resequence. I need to make sure to switch aircraft as they are transitioning from sector to sector even when I am working combined. I will work on having a better knowledge of gaps in the frequencies and where the problem spots are. I will also review east traffic procedures so that I am more familiar with them when we do go east.




Synopsis: ATC Controller reported allowing an aircraft to remain on the previous (combined) frequency; then lost communications as the aircraft flew below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landing Runway XX in ZZZ Tower didn't have proper spacing between us and landing traffic on Runway XXR. Tower had us execute a go-around. Returned and landed without incident.




Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported they were instructed to go-around by Tower.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMFR.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center MMFR
Aircraft component: Navigation Database
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Software and Automation
Primary problem: Software and Automation

Narrative: Near the end of the cruise phase of flight we briefed the arrival and the approach to the landing runway. During the brief of the arrival we had noticed that the crossing restriction at the first fix (DARAN) on the arrival (DARAN1A) was incorrect as compared between the approach plate and the arrival selected out of the FMC. The DARAN1A arrival is FL210 to FL230 at the DARAN; the altitude from the FMC showed FL250 to FL280 (DARAN1B). At this point we both cross checked the date on the approach and discussed when we had both done our last update. We concluded that we had both updated just before the flight and the dates were correct on the approach chart. We then had thought that maybe we had incorrectly loaded the wrong arrival into the FMC. We proceeded to monitor each other as we reloaded the landing runway approach and the correct arrival. After reloading the FMC with the landing runway approach and the DARAN1A for arrival we noticed that the crossing restriction at DARAN remain the same FL250 to FL280. Due to congestion in Mexico City our flight and another flight were told to hold 20 miles north of DARAN. When told to continue our plan was to question the crossing restriction at DARAN; but we were descended in the hold to FL210. After arriving at FL210 we were cleared to DARAN and the rest of the arrival landing on Runway 5R [was] uneventful. I have previously been into Mexico City and number of times and the DARAN1A crossing restriction at DARAN has been correct as depicted compared to the FMC. NOTE: All other fixes and crossing restrictions on the DARAN1A were correct except DARAN at FL250 to FL280. The FMC loaded DARAN1A is incorrect. Please check the FMC database is correct to make sure the DARAN crossing restriction between FL210 toFL230 is correct.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier pilot reported an incorrect crossing restriction for a STAR in the FMC Database.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Instructor
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Training
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was forced to deliver [aircraft type] differences class using Distance Learning to mechanics in ZZZ & ZZZ1 while I was in ZZZ2. X mechanics in ZZZ sat in a common area together with nonstudents. 5 mechanics in ZZZ1 sat in a common area together with nonstudents. The mechanics in ZZZ each had their own laptop; camera; microphone & speakers. The mechanics in ZZZ1 had one TV screen; one camera; one microphone and one speaker. Throughout class all the mechanics had to be muted due to poor audio quality; this made it impossible to tell if non class related conversations were occurring. Throughout class the mechanics in ZZZ cameras were not always displaying their face; making it impossible for me to observe their comprehension. Throughout class the mechanics in ZZZ1 were too far away from their shared camera; and often not visible on camera; making it impossible for me to observe their comprehension. Throughout class there was a lengthy delay in the audio to video; making class interaction difficult to the point it was nonexistent. During the test there was talking amongst students that the proctor was not controlling; and most students failed the test. The students were given a retest by the proctor without receiving remedial training. Based on these events I was not able to follow company policy and not able to accomplish the objectives on [the training].During the class the internet connection was not reliable enough to promote class participation. After class was over I received an email; and later a phone call from one of the AMTs that attended class. He had some questions regarding one of the systems on the [aircraft type] that were discussed during class. I explained the system in depth; to a level that goes above and beyond [the training]; but I am concerned the other mechanics may also have questions and whether they fully comprehended the objectives of [the training].The company has a desire to have a large number of mechanics trained on the [aircraft] and to save money; the company is forcing me to teach utilizing Distance Learning.Stop teaching the [aircraft type] via Distance Learning and return to in person classes.




Synopsis: Technician reported difficulties while delivering aircraft training to technicians via distance learning.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Arrived at [the] gate at approximately XA:45. Agent put jet bridge up to aircraft; but would not open aircraft door until XB:00 due to Customs rules. Door should be opened in case we need to get off aircraft quickly. We cannot blow slides in gate area due to luggage carts.




Synopsis: Captain of a wide body international flight reported he blocked in at LAX at XA:45 and the Gate Agent would not open the cabin door until XB:00; reportedly because of U.S. Customs restrictions. Captain expressed concerns about the safety implications if an evacuation became necessary.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was working Non-Radar Approach Control. Aircraft X keyed up and informed the Local Controller his engine was hiccupping. He then announced he was going to land on [the] highway. The Supervisor that was present coordinated all of the phone calls; paperwork and log entries.[I recommend] better aircraft maintenance. This aircraft flies almost on a daily basis. It has had numerous incidents in the past due to poor maintenance. It has frequent radio failures and maintenance related problems. It continues to fly and none of these problems seem to ever get resolved. I do not believe the company renting out this aircraft is interested in fixing these problems.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported a pilot advised of intent to land on highway due to engine malfunctions.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Indication
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were roughly 8 miles out when I called for flaps 1. We got the LE SLAT DIS message on the EICAS. We elected to abandon the approach and asked for delay vectors to give the Captain time to run the checklist. The Captain ran the LE SLAT DIS checklist in the QRH. This checklist did not solve the issue and led us to the LE SLAT ASYM checklist. The checklist directed us to land at Vref30 +30 kts so we told ATC that we needed the longest runway available. The Captain sent for the LDR (Landing Distance Required) with the appropriate malfunction chosen. We received the LDR with only max manual braking listed (as we expected). We also looked in the QRH performance to find the landing distance with the given malfunction. The landing distance was approximately 4500 ft for the given conditions. We still had ample fuel; so the Captain decided to contact flight control via sat com to advise them of our situation and also to make sure we hadn't missed anything. After completing the sat com call to flight control; the Captain briefed the approach and we transferred controls. We decided to [advise ATC] at that time and asked to be vectored on to the approach. We continued the approach and landing without further issue. We required no further assistance from ATC after landing and we taxied to the ramp. [The Captain] did an outstanding job thoroughly running the checklist and managing CRM/SA (Cockpit Resource Management/Situational Awareness). Also; I felt very prepared for the situation; having just completed training where this was an item we covered in the simulator. I don't think this is an item that can be prevented; but I personally feel that the training I received prepared me for this event.


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


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew reported an EICAS 'LE SLAT DIS' message while on approach.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 4;500 feet; the engine had a sudden loss of RPM and subsequent roughness. Carb heat was applied and mixture was set to full rich; was unsuccessful at troubleshooting. The engine continued to run rough and I made a 180 degree turn to head to ZZZ airport to land. Advised ATC and landed safely.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported engine roughness and a loss of RPMs led to a diversion.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was informed yesterday; by Chief Pilot; that I am expected to fly when I am fatigued; if I expect to be paid. I experienced a fatigue event back on date; during which I didn't feel adequately rested to fly. I was unable to get an appropriate amount of sleep at home due to various issues and was not comfortable trying to fly 4 legs; in and out of 3 different airports; during an XX 1/2 hour duty day; on a little over 2 hours of sleep. Evidently; my XY+ hours in the Captain's seat is not enough time for me to determine whether or not I'm sufficiently rested enough to fly.I'm not a 'morning person;' and I don't typically fly trips that sign-in before XF:00 AM. But; because my original sequence was canceled due to COVID-19; I was assigned a trip that signed in at XC:00 AM. I went to bed early the night before; but awoke after a couple of hours of sleep and was unable to go back to sleep. While getting ready for the trip; I recognized that I was not adequately rested and I called in fatigued at approximately XA:30 AM. I believe that if the company is going to assign trips; there should be some consideration given to circadian rhythm and preferences of the Pilot being assigned.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported calling in fatigued and being told months later they are expected to fly fatigued.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System Pump
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Approximately 3 minutes after takeoff just after clean up received a HYD (Hydraulic) B ELEC PUMP LO PR (Low Pressure) ECAM message. Performed ECAM actions; follow ups; [requested priority handling]; and returned to ZZZ. Extended vectors to land below max landing weight. Cleared runway; checked over by ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting); taxied to gate. Additionally APU was inoperative. HYD pump failure.Cause is unknown it was a maintenance issue.


Second narrative: ECAM Hydraulic B Electric Pump Low Pressure. Ran fix strategy. Decided to return to ZZZ. Delay vectors to burn off fuel to avoid overweight landing. [Requested Priority Handling]; safety vehicles inspected aircraft after landing and followed us to gate. Landed underweight runway XX; normal landing. Also APU was deferred.APU deferred. Safest course of action was to return to ZZZ.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported Hydraulic Pump Failure after takeoff.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class E ZZZ1
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aircraft Heating System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On taxi to runway XX; holding short of runway; turned on cabin heat to use defrost (ram air and defrost fully open) for windshield and visible smoke and smoke smell was in the cockpit; turned off heater; and opened crew door; and promptly returned to gate; smoke dissipated and did not continue. At the gate; promptly deplaned passengers; and wrote up airplane.Caused by heater [malfunctioning].




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a fume/smoke event in cockpit during departure taxi when windshield heat was activated.