elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PSP.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Brasilia EMB-120 All Series
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D PSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While being vectored for landing and Palm Springs 13 right; ATC asked us to descend 2;000 feet from our present altitude. At the time; we were closely in trail of another aircraft 2;000 feet below us. In addition; we had an aircraft at our 4 o'clock position overtaking us and below us. We advised ATC we were unable to comply with their instruction because of conflicting traffic. The area was extremely heavy with traffic and the ATC controller seemed to be overwhelmed. We told the controller multiple times we were unable to comply with his instructions due to conflicting traffic but never received a response. We then received an RA and complied with the RA. We informed ATC that we were leaving our altitude responding to an RA. ATC responded; then gave us new instructions and we complied and landed without further incident.I believe the root cause was heavily congested airspace and an extremely busy air traffic controller. There was an event in Palm Springs that weekend which probably increased traffic significantly.Possibly add an additional controller with an additional frequency when traffic gets that busy; or maybe have arrival slots when an event is going on. Another possibility would be to use flow control into the area to avoid such congestion.


Second narrative: While descending could have prevented one RA we were already getting traffic alerts and had at least 3 conflicts below making descending into them reckless. We voiced a very specific concern and it was not addressed. As our fear was ATC overlooking something (the traffic below us) his lack of acknowledgement of our concern only heightened our suspicion.


Synopsis: Unable to complete a necessary communication with Approach control regarding a descent clearance into busy PSP traffic below them; an EMB-120 flight crew delayed their descent; but then received a TCAS 'descend' RA to which they complied.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: UUWV.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Wind
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center UUWV
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Aircraft
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: ADS B OUT L and loss of GPS position. [Caused by] GPS jamming.




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain reported GPS jamming.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the ZZZZZ X Arrival; a late clearance was issued and believed to have been to 'Expect ZZZZZ1 at 250 knots.' That 'Expect' clearance was read back by the Pilot Flying (First Officer) due to the fact that the Pilot Monitoring (Captain) was speaking to the flight attendants on the interphone. After passing ZZZZZ1; ATC asked to verify that we were at 250 knots; the First Officer/PM responded that we were awaiting the expect 250 knots clearance. The ATC Controller made reference to the fact that he was wearing a face mask and the clearance may have been miss-understood. The Captain returned from speaking with the flight attendants and the First Officer briefed him on the miss-understanding of the 'expect 250 knot' clearance. The aircraft was slowed to 250 knots and the flight continued on the ZZZZZ X Arrival uneventfully.Communication with ATC can be difficult enough. Controllers wearing face masks doesn't seem like a good idea.


Second narrative: We were descending on the ZZZZZ X. I notified my First Officer that I would be off for a moment; so as to notify the flight attendants to take their seats due to the turbulence. When I notified my First Officer I was back; he informed me that ATC had told us to expect ZZZZZ1 intersection at 250 knots. Shortly after passing ZZZZZ1; ATC queried our speed. We notified ATC that we were at 280 knots but were never assigned the 250 knots at ZZZZZ1 that he told us to expect. ATC commented that he was wearing a face mask and that it was probably hard for us to understand him. We slowed to 250 knots and the remainder of flight was uneventful.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported missing a speed restriction clearance possibly due to the Controller wearing a face mask.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On the JAGGR ONE RNAV Arrival into DEN; the chart shows the requirement to cross LYNKN at 280 KTS at or above FL270. We were cruising at FL340 and our top of descent point was past LYNKN. To cross LYNKN at 280 KTS would require flying fairly close to the barber pole speed at FL340; well above our profile speed at FL340 of something close to .74 Mach. The only other way to actually cross LYNKN at 280 KTS would be to initiate a very early descent and even then I don't know how often a given combination of Mach # and transition to 280 would have the aircraft still flying a Mach # at LYNKN at FL270 and slower than the stated 280 KTS.We ended up flying the arrival using the VNAV profile and a transition speed of 280 KTS; which we transitioned to during our descent (i.e. well past LYNKN). ATC said nothing; as we were on a normal speed profile. (We did not accelerate early to an extremely high Mach number in order to be at 280 KIAS at LYNKN nor did we descend early.)This looks to me like a design problem with the arrival. As long as later waypoints have the 280-KT mandatory speed then a properly programmed FMC will fly a constant speed profile; without the issue of forcing Crews to either (a) descend early; (b) fly an extremely high Mach number; or (c) fail to comply with the stated 'at 280-KT' restriction at LYNKN.




Synopsis: A B737-300 Captain believes the crossing restriction of 'At or Above FL270/280KTS' at LYNKN on the JAGGR RNAV STAR to DEN is unrealistic for his aircraft and would require a barber pole descent from their cruise altitude (FL340) or a very early TOD.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given a STAR change; followed by a runway change; followed by an approach choice with two speed assignments all within a short time frame. We agreed to the localizer Runway 27L. During the approach; workload was high and I also had to contact ops and the make the FAs announcement. I had TAFFS at 2200 ft. The mandatory intermediate step downs never registered in my head; although clearly visible on the chart. I was below 7000. The controller mentioned this and told me to maintain 6000 until RIPPR and pointed out the crossing restrictions. Segregate tasks internally. Do one thing at a time; pause; do the next thing.


Second narrative: Was cleared for the Localizer approach for runway 27L (If my memory serves me right) and did not comply with the step down procedures. Was supposed to be at 6000 feet at RIPPR but instead was at a lower altitude. ATC then issued a new altitude assignment and recleared us for the approach. When cleared; the altitude bug was set to the final approach fix altitude and FPA (Flight Path Angle) was selected for the descent mode. I failed to catch this mistake because I'm so used to shooting a full ILS approach and simply forgot that this is a LOC approach and not an ILS approach. Confusion and task satiation also played a critical role. Was given multiple changes throughout the descent. First; we got a new STAR; then a new runway; and finally a new approach. But I make no excuses! I should've caught the mistake. We are a team up there. Cross check and verify the approach you are shooting. Make sure the runway is correct and the approach is correct.


Synopsis: EMB175 flight crew reported being task saturated with multiple changes to the ORD approach that resulted in an altitude deviation.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other General Ramp
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Recently there was a new ground power unit installed at Gate X. To protect the unit; Facilities placed some metal/concrete posts to prevent GSE (Ground Support Equipment) from damaging the ground power. These posts are installed inside the designated Operational Safety Zone; and cannot be removed on a flight by flight basis. Technically; because they are inside the OSZ (Operational Safety Zone); no aircraft should enter before they are removed; but they are bolted into the ground.




Synopsis: Ground personnel reported installation of permanent posts inside the Operational Safety Zone at aircraft gate.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We had two RNAV STAR changes inbound to DEN; all of which were checked by both pilots and a jumpseat rider and cross checked with the EFB and commercially provided paper aero charts. All speeds were checked; we were in LNAV and VNAV; on path; on speed and the PDI showed on profile. Then; approaching QUAIL; still in VNAV and LNAV; we could not make the crossing speed and altitude restrictions at QUAIL even with speed brakes fully extended. We did not make the profile altitudes while the LNAV and VNAV showed on the PDI and I am baffled as to why. We informed ATC and were given a descend and maintain clearance; a vector turn and a speed at our discretion. We were then cleared for a visual approach to R35L and landed normally. I called Approach Control and the SUPERVISOR said he had NO PROBLEM with our flight and that there has been a flood of issues with aircraft not making the profiles on these new arrivals One minute we were on the path and; in an instant; we were very high on the profile! WE ARE BAFFLED. After 29 years with 12 plus on this fleet; this was the first problem I have had with this issue.




Synopsis: A B757 Captain reported that; despite properly programming and verifying the FMS; the aircraft was unable to comply with the altitude and airspeed restrictions at QUAIL intersection descending into DEN. When he contacted Approach Control after landing the Supervisor advised it was no problem because the deviation was one of many occurring following implementation of the new OPD RNAV STARs at DEN.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: B757-200
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: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb through FL250 we noticed a very strong odor that we thought was an electrical fire. We completed the appropriate checklists and then requested the lead FA (Flight Attendant) to come to the cockpit. Upon entering the cockpit the FA stated 'what's burning' which helped us verify our suspicions of an electrical fire. The odor did diminish some but not completely after running the checklists. We then decided to divert and make an overweight landing.


Second narrative: Upon climbing from FL230 to FL310 approximately 20 minutes into flight; FO (Flight Officer) smelled a strong odor of electrical fumes (acrid odor) with no associated smoke. Captain also smelled it. Flight Attendant was called up to cockpit and confirmed the smell. Smoke/Fire/Fumes QRC/QRH was performed. Odor subsided after checklist was performed and crew decided to divert. Dispatch was notified via ACARS. Captain performed an overweight landing at 224K lbs and taxied to gate uneventfully. Flight conditions were IMC in rain at night near thunderstorms (with occasional St Elmo's fire phenomena across the windscreen) for most of the flight until weather improved enough for a visual approach. Once parked; Maintenance noticed the residual smell upon entering cockpit.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported electrical fumes and diverting to alternate airport.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: FSD.Airport, SD
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other unknown
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FSD
Reporter organization: Other unknown
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While taxiing on Alpha Taxiway at a slower than usual rate for departure on Runway 33 and attempting to turn onto Alpha 1 to enter the runway; the aircraft continued sliding forward on Taxiway A. The right quartering tailwind combined with the icy taxiway caused the aircraft to depart the paved taxiway surface where the left main gear and nosewheel slipped off the paved surface onto the frozen ground. The right main gear remained on the paved surface. With the aircraft stopped we shut down the aircraft and arrangements were made with airport ground crews and maintenance personnel to have the airplane towed back onto the taxiway to the hangar where an inspection was made. No damage was found and the aircraft was deemed safe to fly. In addition no damage occurred to airport property.


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


Synopsis: Flight Crew reported icy conditions; blowing snow; and gusty wind resulted in a taxiway excursion.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Captain leveled aircraft at FL320 and IAW with cruise checklist; noticed the EGT exceedance pointer on Number 2 had exceeded 1;000 degrees to approximately 1;050 Celsius.  IAW the QRH we brought Number 2 engine to idle.  No other abnormal indication existed and we notified Center we would be returning.  Maintenance and Dispatch were notified.  We needed to burn down approximately 10;000 LBS of fuel to prevent an overweight landing and requested holding 15 NM NW of the airport at 10;000 feet.  After all checklists and briefings were completed; we exited holding and declared an emergency with ATC as a precautionary measure.  We proceeded to an uneventful landing and terminated the emergency after clearing the runway.


Second narrative: On level off; checked engine instruments and noticed Engine Number 2 EGT had exceeded limits - indicated approximately 1;050.  Directed the First Officer to comply with checklist (NO ECAM or Advisory indicated).  Checklist directed throttle to be left at idle (with use above that at Captain's discretion).  Crew discussed and elected to return.  We coordinated with Maintenance; Dispatch; and ATC.  As we were 10;000 LBS over MLGW; we got holding instructions approximately 15 miles NW of the airport.  In holding we completed all preparations for landing; including discussion regarding possibility of SE procedures; reduced LGW (landed at 305 = 3K < MLGW); balanced fuel. Departed holding and declared an emergency.  Flew approach until 1;500 [FT] on GS; then increased throttle on Engine Number 2; and used it as normal until landing.  Upon landing; did not use Thrust Reverse (it was not needed; and was easier on the Engine.  Cleared runway and canceled emergency; taxied to ramp; and discussed issue with Maintenance.Not sure when the exceedance occurred - it was not present during preflight; and we do not believe it happened when setting TO power.  Believe it was caught as soon as possible and handled appropriately.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew discovers an EGT exceedance upon reaching cruise altitude; (1;050 degrees C) and elects to return to the departure airport after burning down to maximum landing weight.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Local East during a busy departure session.  I cleared an aircraft for takeoff and ground asked me for a crossing behind my departure at taxiway Tango.  I approved it and did my own crossings at taxiway N and E.  When my crossings were complete I scanned the runway and cleared Aircraft X for takeoff.  Aircraft Y had not yet entered the runway at T.  Aircraft X didn't roll right away and then asked about the traffic crossing at T.  Traffic was busy and I was trying to get one more departure out in front of my next 35 arrival.  I forgot about the crossing I gave to ground at Tango.  I did have the departure strip flipped over so I wouldn't clear my departure for takeoff but when my traffic was done crossing at E & N; I flipped it back over and rolled my departure.  I scanned the runway before I cleared him but Aircraft Y was not yet on the runway.  It's simply my fault for forgetting.




Synopsis: A PHL Tower Controller reports of having a runway incursion because he forgot about traffic crossing and cleared an aircraft for takeoff.