elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZFW.ARTCC, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: D10 controller called and said 'Quit deleting the speeds; these aircraft are not making their crossing restrictions.'I answered with 'They are all assigned the STAR altitudes and speeds.' I later realized that the controller at D10 was saying that I had failed to make the pilots comply with the restrictions. In the Center environment:1) The controller issues the restriction.2) The pilot reads back the restriction correctly.3) The pilot is expected to comply with the restriction. If the pilot cannot comply with the restriction he/she is to tell the controller that they cannot comply and the controller will come up with a new plan or restriction that will work.We were recently assigned to watch an eLMS [electronic Learning Management System] instruction course about departure routings. In the course it said that the controller was responsible for the pilots' actions even when the controller issued the correct restriction and the pilot read the restriction back correctly. Hold the pilots responsible for their actions. We cannot have two sets of rules. Currently in the center environment the pilot is responsible for complying with the restrictions they are given. According to this eLMS course: In a TRACON or tower environment the controllers is responsible for the pilots' actions even when the controller does everything correctly.If I am wrong about the rules please tell me and all center controllers as soon as possible. The pilots have to be responsible for their actions. Controllers cannot be held responsible for the mistakes of pilots. That is just insane.




Synopsis: ZFW Controller describes situations where D10 controllers complain about aircraft not making crossing restrictions; because the ZFW Controller is issuing different speed to the aircraft than what are on the STARS. The ZFW Controller thinks it is up to the pilot to tell him that can't do the speed and make the restriction.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GFK.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D GFK
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While supervising a student conducting an instrument approach I noted that he/she had incorrectly selected the outbound radial [rather than its reciprocal inbound course] to comply with our ATC clearance. I noted this; and then waited a period to see if the student would correct the error. I eventually changed it for them and they started to debate with me. Then ATC called. In retrospect there had been a repeat of the same sort of errors with respect to a clearance. At the time I had the impression that they had cleared us for the approach and we shortly began a procedure turn. We hadn't deviated very far from the course when ATC advised that we weren't cleared and that we indeed should continue outbound. I began writing notes for the debrief in my new electronic flight bag (EFB) and continued to have things occur that required annotation. Unfamiliarity with the system to take notes efficiently diverted my attention from the student selecting the incorrect inbound course and by the time I noticed the error--by looking outside--we were almost one mile off course with less than 4 miles to go to the MAP. Embarrassing to say the least. Technology needs to serve its purpose and not be a distraction. As an instructor my 'second' priority is giving instruction; my 'first' must always be flying the airplane. Just because a student is advanced doesn't mean that they won't make mistakes.




Synopsis: An instructor providing IFR training in a C-172 allowed himself to get distracted by taking student error notes on a new EFB. As a result; he allowed/participated in a minor track deviation until advised by ATC.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GFK.Airport, ND
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower GFK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: After consulting with the First Officer (FO) we elected to use Max auto braking for landing on [GFK] Runway 35L. The braking action was 45/45/35 mu report. I wanted to land and stop in the first 2/3 of the 7200 foot runway. Upon touchdown; full reverse was applied to both engines. Auto brakes worked as advertised. As we slowed 80 knot and 60 knot calls were made from the FO. Reversers were stowed as per standard operating procedure. As we came to a slow crawl; dust entered the air conditioning system and dust mist filled the cockpit. Main cargo fire warnings illuminated.I instructed the FO that the fire warnings were from the dust from the runway. Subsequently the Main Cargo fire warnings ceased on the taxi into the gate. Taxi in and shutdown were uneventful.The runway was very contaminated with sand from deicing the runway unbeknownst to the crew.I think that if I had known the runway was not only contaminated with snow and ice and that it had great quantities of sand debris on the runway; I still would have used max auto brakes; however I would have used less engine reversers and would have come out of reverse sooner.




Synopsis: Air Cargo Captain reported that after landing on a runway contaminated with sand the aircraft filled with dust that had been ingested by the packs following use of reverse thrust.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSN.Airport, WI
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C MSN
ATC / advisory: Tower MSN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on Runway 36 and told to maintain Runway heading. As we were lining up for takeoff; I saw a GA aircraft approximately 3.5 miles to the South of the airport. I also observed a C152 midfield; just to the east of the centerline of Runway 36 on a northeast heading approximately 100 feet AGL. This aircraft was on a practice miss approach or go around. It appeared that the C152 was turning right.Takeoff roll and rotation were normal. No unusual events noted.At positive rate; First Officer (FO) Flying Pilot called for gear up. Right after selecting gear up; we got a TCAS popup and we observed a C152 at our same altitude (approximately 300 feet AGL) and approximately 250 Feet on the left side of our aircraft. At no time during takeoff roll and/or rotation did the FO or myself see the C152 anywhere near our flight path. Nor did we see the C152 turn left into our flight path.Below remarks are from a conversation that I had with the MSN Tower Supervisor:The Supervisor told me that the C152 was a local based trainer with a CFI and student on board. The Tower Supervisor also told me that the Controller had told the C152 to turn right twice and maintain a pattern altitude of 1000 Feet (which I did hear). The Controller didn't get any readback from the C152. Right after the second attempt trying to communicate with the C152; the Controller got distracted by another aircraft. When the Controller looked down field; he observed that the C152 had actually turned left. He thought that the C152 was well west of the extended centerline of RWY36. In my opinion the C152 was not well west of the extended centerline of Runway 36.Human Error was caused by Tower Controller getting distracted and the CFI not having situational awareness (missed ATC call).[Suggest] Delay takeoff until you are sure that all aircrafts are clear of the departure path at a ATC controlled airport.




Synopsis: EMB-145 Captain reported NMAC with a C152 shortly after takeoff from MSN.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; varying surface winds
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-46 Malibu/Malibu Mirage/Malibu Matrix
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: Short final to runway 35; long term construction on airport. Landing runway with new seal coat; lights; stripes; no ground traffic; no visual runway barricade; etc. Short final; hazy day; sun coming up; unable to visualize yellow 'X' on numbers '35' prior to touch down. The yellow 'X' was smaller than the '35' and obliterated by the runway marking '35'; along with shadows and haze. Distorted the view resulting in inadvertent touchdown on runway 35. No incident or accident.Mitigating factors; aside from shadows; small; difficult to visualize 'X' in the ambient light; no additional runway blocking markers on approach; nor 'X' light poles etc. available. Personal physiological needs.  RX: Need bigger; more visible 'X'; place Larger 'X' over painted runway markers where it is more easily visualized; etc.




Synopsis: The pilot of a PA46 landed on a closed runway at a non-towered airport. Although the runway had an 'X' over the runway number; it was reported to have been very difficult to see.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing roll
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon landing everything had been normal on the flight but; after setting the nose gear on the runway; the aircraft veered left. The crew made all efforts to maintain the aircraft on the runway; but the aircraft departed the runway to the left. The aircraft stopped on the grass and the crew performed the shutdown and evacuation procedures. The nose gear had collapsed during the landing.No passengers were on board the aircraft. The crew did not suffer any injuries.




Synopsis: When the CL600's nose gear collapsed after landing the flight crew was unable to arrest an excursion off the left side of the runway.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: Tower TEB
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Aircraft; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Flight crew briefed and understood the RUUDY4 departure from TEB prior to takeoff; including engagement of the autopilot before the first level-off (WENTZ). Departure was properly loaded in FMS. After takeoff; at approximately 500 FT MSL; the FMS automatically switched from HDG mode to LNAV mode; as the crew had briefed and expected.In capturing the LNAV mode; somewhere between 1.3 and 2.3 miles on the departure; the flight director commanded an initial turn to [toward] the 260 heading [track] before correcting back to the 240 heading. During this time; the pilot flying followed the command bars; turning to the 260 heading before the charted intercept from the 240 heading. ATC queried if the aircraft was on the departure and said it looked like we had turned too early. At this point the pilot flying returned to a 240 heading to rejoin the departure.While I responded to the radio call I also noted that the pilot flying had climbed to an altitude of 1;600 FT MSL and made the statement 'altitude.' The pilot flying corrected to 1;500 MSL. The altitude situation could have been avoided by engagement of the autopilot at 1;000 FT; as briefed prior to takeoff. The aircraft avionics did try to make an abrupt capture and would have caused the airplane to turn off course even if the autopilot had been engaged. Better situational awareness on the part of flight crew would have lead the pilot flying to follow the departure procedure as depicted on the chart rather than relying solely on the command bars.




Synopsis: A momentary erroneous right turn command as the FMS transitioned from heading to LNAV mode while flying the RUUDY RNAV SID from TEB resulted in a premature turn to intercept the track to WENTZ. That distraction contributed to a small altitude deviation when the pilot flying failed to level at 1;500 FT MSL as charted.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While waiting to cross [the runway] behind an Airbus; ground keyed the mic and began to give the instruction to cross when suddenly a loud automated 'TAXIWAY' alert was heard in the background and the Controller told [the Airbus] to hold. Due to the odd transmission I looked up to see the navigation and landing lights of [a corporate jet] right over the tail of [the Airbus] suddenly pull up and fly right overhead. [The corporate jet] had appeared to have lined up to land on [the] taxiway.


Second narrative: The alert given by the taxiway arrival prediction system clued us in on a problem which was then verified by what we saw outside the cockpit. He was indeed lined up with [the taxiway].


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported that while holding short of the runway a corporate jet executed a missed approach after lining up with the taxiway.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing as a repo flight. The aircraft was written up the night before for a flight control malfunction. We actually had the airplane the day before and noticed that the autopilot acted a little funny at times. We both did not think it was a big deal. Apparently it had gotten worse that afternoon. I do believe that airplane actually diverted to [an alternate] for that specific reason. Before we departed Maintenance Control called us and informed us what the situation was and if we had any issues return back. Everything seems normal with all our originating checks. After departing we engaged the autopilot which at that point the airplane decided to roll right 20 degrees past what the heading bug was actually sent to. At this point both me and the Captain decided that it was not safe to continue so we returned to the field; landed safely; and parked the airplane at Maintenance. We informed Maintenance and Dispatch Of the situation.We detected it when the autopilot was engaged and we decided it was best to return to the fieldI believe it was an issue with a servo or the autopilot itself.Our Maintenance crews should have probably run more tests than just an aileron alignment.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported returning to departure airport after experiencing an autopilot anomaly.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: Cessna Citation Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were at 10;000 feet and assigned 300 knots; between ESSPO fix and the ORD VOR about 10 to 14 DME and given a turn to 270 degrees. The Captain saw a few TCAS targets pop up and then we got a RA to descend below 10;000 feet. As we had to descend fast we were not able to slow to 250 knots as we went below 10;000 feet. The target aircraft was very close to us; maybe 200 to 400 feet. The Captain called Approach to tell them and they and they forgot to tell us there was a Citation at 10;500 feet. We had descended below 10;000 feet and were off our altitude and were not able to slow to 250 knots below; due to responding to the RA Advisory. That ATC needs to give more warning of aircraft to prevent RA's.




Synopsis: EMB-170 First Officer experiences a TCAS descend RA approaching ORD at 10;000 feet and 300 knots; caused by a Citation at 10;500 feet that ATC forgot to mention.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On arrival into DEN; we were being vectored for the ILS 35R on a clear; VFR night. With the runway in sight; we were level at 9;000 FT. After clearance for the visual approach; we then set in the FAF altitude of 7;000 FT for FRONZ (the FAF). We descended out of 9;000 FT and got a radio call from Approach telling us to check our altitude as they got a low altitude alert. We then climbed back to about 8;000 FT to join the VASI. We never got any aircraft GPWS warnings or alerts. After joining the VASI; we continued on for an uneventful landing. We should have kept 9;000 FT in the Altitude window and stayed at 9;000 FT until we were past DRUMM Intersection.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A B737 on a night visual approach to DEN 35R was issued an ATC Low Altitude Alert descending toward 7;000 FT at FRONZ but climbed to 8;000 FT then descended on the VASI. The EGPWS never alerted.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action

Narrative: Right forward support fitting for the inboard flap inboard track separated. Found other aircraft with the same condition with sheared bolts. Ref AD 2013-23-16.




Synopsis: Maintenance Technicians reported a B757 subject to an airworthiness directive was found to have a separated Trailing Edge Flap Support Track Fitting.