elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CMH.Airport, OH
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C CMH
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ATC added GIVES waypoint prior to DJB in our flight plan in our PDC. On climb out ATC gave us a right turn direct GIVES. We initiated the right turn and looked for GIVES in our FMS flight plan but could not find it. Asked for the waypoint and ATC gave us the spelling and we continued our right turn direct to GIVES. ATC gave us a phone number and asked us to call on the ground. ATC stated that no deviation or loss of separation occurred. This was my first trip since the transition and first time seeing and using the new PDC format with no training on it. In the section that changed our flight plan it read 'CREW ALERT: ATC CHANGE GIVES DJB.' Being unfamiliar with the new PDC format and the CMH area I read GIVES has a word not a waypoint; i.e. ATC is giving you direct DJB. Speaking with ATC on the ground they told us that they had been seeing this problem a lot when they give GIVES on the departure out of CMH. A change in the name of the waypoint could make it obvious in our PDC's that GIVES is a waypoint and not something else; training or information on new PDC formats before using them could help avoid issues like this as well.




Synopsis: Air Carrier First Officer departing CMH reports receiving a route change via PDC that states 'CREW ALERT: ATC CHANGE GIVES DJB' and does not realize that GIVES is a waypoint.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PBI.Tower, FL
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: Tower PBI
Second aircraft: M-20 Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: CE750 on the visual approach talking to Tower.  Indicating 180 KT.  M20 on parallel downwind indicating 120 knots. Turned the M20 due north for base to follow the CE750.  Issued traffic then got caught up with oSther duties.  When I looked back the M20 was indicating 180 KTS and the CE750 had slowed to 120 KTS.  I cleared the M20 for the visual approach to the south runway.  M20 did not have the CE750 insight.  I saw the wind was 120@15 figured the turn would slow the M20.  The M20 did not slow.  I issued traffic again but the M20 still did not have the CE750 insight.  I cancelled the M20 approach clearance and broke him out.  I known there was a loss of separation. I miscalculated the winds. I thought they would have helped slow the M20; but I was wrong.  I should have recognized the situation quicker and broke the aircraft out sooner.  Needed to be more proactive than I was.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reports a loss of separation between a CE750 and a M20 during as planned visual approach but with the M20 pilot unable to visually acquire the CE750. The approach speed of the CE750 had decreased 60 KTS and the M20 had increased 60 KTS; which was unexpected.
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Troubleshooting; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was landing LAX over Gramm intersection on the RIIVR arrival.  We were Time Based metering to LAX and the controller at R20 issued a speed of 250 knots to follow another aircraft I was working over Konzl.  Aircraft X was about 2;000ft high over Gramm because of the speed reduction.  The controller at Feeder vectored Aircraft X into my airspace; 19; without a point out. The controller vectored Aircraft X past the localizer; which is against the LOA. The feeder controller called R20 and told him he needed the aircraft over Gramm at the Altitudes in the LOA. The FLM for arrivals area at SCT also called our FLM to tell him we need to have the aircraft make their restrictions.  The R20 controller told the feeder controller something like OK or WILCO when the coordination took place.We have been having major problems with Arrivals Area.  This morning we had several unsafe situations because of last minute calls from Feeder to spin aircraft.  We also could not get ahold of them on the line this morning after repeatedly attempting and finally; sector 20 went into holding because of the unsafe situation Feeder was placing us in.  Many controllers are aware that certain crews that work Arrivals area are more jumpy and maybe not as comfortable with high volumes of traffic so we get spun more frequently from that crew.  We attempt to accommodate a 'staggered' flow over KONZL/GRAMM in order to avoid being spun; which is not in the LOA.  I am aware that not all controllers do this; but I feel most controllers would rather try to give approach what they want and not have to spin several aircraft. If a controller at SCT feels that the LOA is not sufficient for flow control or doesn't meet their needs; there are ways to fix this.  This needs to be addressed in another manner; not at the sector.




Synopsis: ZLA controller describes situation where SCT arrival Controller vectors an aircraft into ZLA's airspace without a point out.
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Assemb Blade
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Maximum weight takeoff. TOGA power was applied. Just prior to 80 KTS; there was a very loud bang and the aircraft began to turn left on the runway. As Captain; I rejected the takeoff. ECAM indicated left engine failure. Aircraft behind us reported a large flame had been seen from the left engine; but that had lasted only briefly. Flight Attendant also reported seeing the flame; but no fire visible after we stopped. We were very near the fire station; so we elected to leave the runway and have the fire crew inspect the exterior of the plane. They reported no leaks or other evidence of damage. We informed Dispatch and local Operations and then taxied back to the gate. Maintenance reported that the turbine disks were destroyed. Passengers were deplaned. We were given another aircraft to complete the flight.




Synopsis: An A321 Captain rejected a TOGA power takeoff after the left engine turbine section failed which triggered an ENG 1 FAIL ECAM.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: A320
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); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This aircraft had flown through moderate mixed icing between 2000-5000 feet into ZZZ and the pilots landed and elected to put the flaps up without knowing if they still had ice on them. They sat on the ground about 30 minutes waiting for their gate to open. We were the outbound crew for this aircraft and the pilots told us when they deplaned that they had flown through the icing but believed most had melted off on the ground. The temperature was around 28F. When we boarded the plane the APU was running and powering the aircraft for both electricity and air. We started to smell fumes and realized the ground deice people had started to deice without coordinating with us or the outbound crew. The aircraft was not configured for deice and we believe the fumes were from the deice fluid entering the bleed system. We called them and told them to stop the deice until we configured the aircraft for deice.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported a fume event during preflight a gate due to a communication breakdown between flight crew and ground deicing personnel.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During a session; I had three aircraft inbound to BAX airport. Two were IFR and one VFR flight following. The two IFR aircraft flew instrument approaches to BAX. I forgot to ask all 3 aircraft if they had the weather and NOTAMs at BAX. I have been working 5 days on and 10 days off due to reduced staffing levels. Additionally; I have not had to give an aircraft an approach clearance in a long time. There were no BAX [NOTAMs] to issue aircraft; but I still did not confirm they had the weather for the airport.I felt unsettled after the session; wondering if I may have missed something when providing approach control services to aircraft. I looked up the requirements in the 7110.65 after the fact. Thankfully; all aircraft were fine; but I failed to be prepared for the task at hand. Knowing my skills may have diminished due to long periods away from the job; I am more aware to anticipate situations that I may be lacking in knowledge. I will be aware of this and seek to refresh myself on procedures I may not normally see often before they occur.




Synopsis: ZOB Center Controller reported forgetting to ask 3 different aircraft if they had weather and NOTAMs for their landing airport.
Date: 201402
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post installation
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Pratt-Whitney PW-120A] Engine Serial Number (S/N) XXXX-48 was involved in a over-torque on a DHC-8-100 aircraft; at Number 1 position. Engine was changed and sent to Engine Shop. I was instructed by Engine Program Manager to remove Engine S/N XXXX-48's Reduction Gearbox (RGB) (S/N XXXX-06) and install RGB S/N XXXX-24 to make Engine XXXX-48 Serviceable again. Task was completed and engine was signed in Serviceable; February 2014. Engine S/N XXXX-48 was then installed on another DHC-8-100 aircraft; at Number 1 position. Two days later; I was told by the Engine Program Manager that Engine S/N XXXX-48 needed to go out for overhaul. I told him that engine was already installed and flying. I showed him the paper he gave me with his workscope of that engine. After much headshaking he admitted his mistake and thought we did the gearbox swap on Engine S/N XXXX-26. That Engine is in the Shop minus the gearbox. I confirmed with him many times during the repair of Engine S/N XXXX-48; reference to his workscope; that we were doing the correct thing. [The second DHC-8-100] arrived in ZZZ later in the afternoon with torque problems. Questioned Manager's decision to send an engine out for overhaul. Followed Manager's plan. Engine on Aircraft Y was changed. Double check Manager's decision.




Synopsis: A Lead Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) explains how an apparent lack of adequate communication between himself and their Engine Program Manager led to the removal of an overtorqued Engine from one DHC-8-100 aircraft and installed on another DHC-8 aircraft that later arrived with the same torque problems. Engine had been scheduled for overhaul; not installation.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: OKV.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: CTAF OKV
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Student pilot with instructor took off from OKV on Runway 35 made left crosswind and then continued to the southeast toward White Post airport climbing up to 1;500 MSL/800 AGL. Approximately 1.5 miles to the south of OKV encountered a small UAV helicopter at the same altitude. [We] came close enough to determine color; type; and approximate size; possibly within 200 FT. UAV was 2-3 FT across; it was red; and was the 3-channel type. We turned our helicopter left and descended to avoid. Made radio call on CTAF advising other aircraft of the UAV and location/altitude. The UAV helicopter should not have been that high or that close to the airport. UAVs need regulation and operators need training in how to avoid piloted aircraft.




Synopsis: An instructor and student departed OKV and while climbing through 1;500 FT took evasive action from a UAS approximately 1.5 miles south of the airport.
Date: 201811
Location: HND.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to departure; we thoroughly reviewed arrival options considering the terrain and lack of good approaches into HND. The safest option was visual to [Runway] 17R. We would have a 3-4 knot tailwind but it was the best choice for our night arrival.We requested the [Runway] 17R visual with Las Vegas approach and they said HND would assign our runway. We again requested [Runway] 17R on initial contact with HND Tower. We were told that [Runway] 35L was the active and they could not accommodate our request. We were vectored to a five mile final for [Runway] 35L and we had the airport including the VASI clearly in sight. At 4-5 mile final we were on the VASI and began descent below 4;000 feet. We received a terrain advisory and we executed a go around. We notified Tower and requested landing on [Runway] 17R. We flew a left visual to [Runway] 17R and landed on [Runway] 17R.With the terrain south of HND; I do not think [we] should land on [Runway] 35L or R. The VASI is 4.3 [degrees] and there is no room for error.




Synopsis: CL-350 First Officer reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a night visual approach to Runway 35L at HND.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon departure we couldn't retract the landing gear. Upon reaching a safe altitude we ran the appropriate checklist; and performed a [precautionary] landing without incident.   Nothing could have prevented this event from occurring.




Synopsis: Captain reported landing gear would not retract on take off and elected to perform an air turn back and precautionary landing.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on my second flight of the day.  The first flight was dual with my instructor; and the second flight was solo.  Following some maneuver work; I returned to the ZZZ pattern and completed 3 touch and go's with wind conditions reported by AWOS as light and variable.  Just prior to my full stop landing; the wind was reported by AWOS as 060 at 4 knots.  I experienced light/moderate turbulence on final and a right crosswind through my flare and touchdown.  I touched down left of the center line; and felt the plane being pushed gradually to the left.  I applied right rudder and was unable to keep the plane on the runway.  I traveled off the runway; struck a runway marker light with the left gear leg; and came to a stop in the snow.  Cosmetic damage only to the left gear leg; no additional damage.




Synopsis: C172 student pilot on solo flight reported a runway excursion after landing in light/moderate turbulence conditions.