elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZSU.ARTCC, PR
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZSU
ATC / advisory: Center ZSU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approaching SJU airspace; SJU Approach rerouted us.  First fix of new route was DONQU and we were cleared direct to that fix.  We made error in understanding that fix; and we thought we were cleared direct to DONKE which was a fix on our original flight plan.  A few minutes later the Controller called and asked us if we were direct to DONQU.  We told him that we were direct to DONKE and he corrected us and told us to proceed direct to DONQU.  We proceeded to that fix with no further issues. I suggest changing name of one of those fixes.  They are both in same vicinity and sound similar.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a track heading deviation during approach to SJU airport.  Captain stated they were confused over similar sounding intersections DONQU and DONKE.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: It all happened with 20 to 30 minutes of my shift. The position was not too busy when I first sat down but quickly got busy. Multiple aircraft were calling on different frequencies. Aircraft were departing satellite airports looking to pick up an IFR clearance in the air. Other areas and facilities kept calling; and pilots kept stepping on each other. There was also a lot of paperwork to clean up and things to organize when I sat down. I had noticed that the aircraft was going to be a factor for a satellite departure so I took them off the arrival and gave them a 050 heading. Once the traffic was clear I turned the aircraft to a 360 heading and issued 2;000 feet. That is not a normal procedure for me at all and if I do take people off the arrival I usual give 6;000 or 3;000 feet. I have no idea why I issued 2;000 feet.I had already told the others in my area that I was too busy to answer other questions and put them in an uncomfortable position to question the altitude I had issued. I noticed the aircraft was around 2;400 feet at the northern most part of the 2;600 foot Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) and didn't change anything because by the time the climb would have started they would have been well out of that MVA. There's not much that I could have done to change the situation.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported they mistakenly issued an altitude to an aircraft which resulted it in flying below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: No Aircraft
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working Ground Control and Clearance Delivery combined from the Ground Control Position.  We had an emergency inbound for runway X which was a Cessna 172.  The fire crew began rolling from the fire house as 4 different call signs: Airport Command; Police Command; F2; and F3.  I also had an OPS14 coming out to assist the emergency vehicles.  I told them to proceed to runway X at their staging areas and they went to the areas they were supposed to go to. The emergency aircraft was the third aircraft to land on X with 2 aircraft taxiing out to [RWY} X.  I initially told Airport Command that the Cessna was 3.5 miles southeast of the airport on initial call.  The first aircraft landed and exited the runway at H4 where there was no emergency vehicles located. The 2nd aircraft to land was a P28A and was planning on exiting H3; where there was a fire truck and an SUV.  The fire truck had to back up to allow the aircraft to exit the runway and this is when another fire truck entered the runway from an access road to follow this aircraft. I noticed the fire truck was following the wrong aircraft and promptly told them to exit the runway and that the next aircraft would be the emergency aircraft; a high wing Cessna. The Cessna landed on [RWY] X with no incident and the fire trucks went back to the fire house with no further assistance.  The Cab Coordinator alerted the supervisor that the vehicle had gone on the runway without authority and I was alerted by the supervisor the next morning when he wanted to listen to the tapes. I would highly recommend that all the emergency vehicles be under one call sign and not 5 calling the ground controller at once.  It adds to the confusing that is already going on with the emergency inbound and it is very unnecessary.  It would have also been nice to know which vehicles were under which call signs because I'm new to this airport and at my last facility; only one vehicle spoke for the entire convoy.




Synopsis: Ground controller reports of a runway incursion due to emergency equipment entering the runway for the wrong aircraft.
Date: 201411
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Dispatch
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Due to workload and sabre issues I've been behind all day; barely enough time to devote to flight following. At XA00 local; I had a 777 desk turn over to me. I had no idea what the workload was. I had approximately 15 flights in the air; I inherited another 15 flights in the air for a total of 30 flights in the air. I am scheduled to receive another desk at XB00; an additional 20 flights. Myself and all of the dispatchers I work with are very concerned not only about workload; but the state of the tools that we are using. In my opinion we have been set up for a major failure. I am stressed and very concerned about safety. Can we do something before someone gets violated; or much worse PLEASE!




Synopsis: Air carrier dispatcher reported his concerns with understaffing and excessive workload.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CMH.TRACON, OH
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C CMH
ATC / advisory: TRACON CMH
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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 Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the OJTI (On-the-Job Training Instructor) in this scenario. My trainee has low hours on final radar. We were pairing up two arrivals on the right runway with Aircraft X on the left runway. We were in full discussion while this was occurring. Aircraft X was given a 250 heading to intercept the localizer for 28L. My trainee asked if he was established on the localizer; he replied he was received it; trainee asked if he had field in sight; he responded he did; trainee cleared him for visual 28L. He then cleared Aircraft Y for the visual to 28R. It wasn't the prettiest operation but it was a learning process for him for pairing. However; as soon as he cleared Aircraft Y; I noticed that Aircraft X had gone through the localizer and was now at 2200 ft. which is too low in that area. I gave him a Low Altitude Alert; despite the audible alert not going off; and then asked him if he had the correct airport in sight as LCK has parallel runways and is easily confused for CMH. He said he did; I gave him a 300 heading and recleared him for the visual to 28L. He did keep going towards LCK so I quickly asked him again and pointed out the difference in direction as well as the fact they both have parallels. He replied he had the wrong airport. I cancelled his approach clearance; climbed him back to 2500 ft.; and turned him to the east. His altitude went all the way up to 3000 ft. but I assumed he was probably jittery. There was no one in the area so I gave him 2500 ft. again. I turned him northbound; called the field; he had it in sight and then cleared him for the visual approach without further incident. I'm not sure there's much you can do when both airports have been there longer than I've been alive. It's a known issue so must of us look out for pilots mistaking LCK for CMH especially coming in from the north side.




Synopsis: Columbus TRACON Controller reported an aircraft lining up for the wrong runway; having the wrong airport insight; and descending to an unsafe altitude.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HWD.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E NCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Myself and my Captain were flying our final leg from ZZZ to HWD. Conditions were night VMC and we had the Hayward city and airport location in sight. The Captain was pilot flying and I was pilot monitoring. The Captain was manually flying and our clearance was to maintain 4;000 until established on the localizer. I went into my iPad to look at my charts; a few moments later I heard the Controller tell us; 'low altitude alert; check altitude immediately; MVA is 3;900.' When I looked over at the Captain's PFD; I saw we had descended to between 3;300-3;400 feet. The Captain took over the radios and corrected the altitude and continued uneventfully.




Synopsis: Light Transport aircraft First Officer reported a CFTT event during approach to HWD airport.  The crew immediately corrected after ATC made them aware of the issue.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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 Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Center gave us a descent from FL380 down to FL340. First Officer (FO) was Pilot Flying. We selected 340 on MCP; we both verified; he selected ALT Intervention; the aircraft began to pitch over; and we both verified 'VNAV PATH'. I am 99.9% sure that we both saw and verbalized we were in VNAV Path and starting down. A few minutes later ATC ask us if we were descending? I looked up to see that we were still at; or close to FL380; MCP was in V/S mode. We had not descended. We corrected flight path and descended to FL340.We (I) surely missed the monitor portion of VVMI. Simply watching closely what the aircraft was doing AT ALL TIMES would have solved the problem. We continued that leg; and flew one more to ZZZ. We noticed that when given an altitude change; sometimes the MCP would stay in VNAV; sometimes it went to ALT Hold; and once to V/S. We learned that we had no idea what the aircraft was going to do; or why it was going to do it. I needed to be more involved in the monitoring of the aircraft itself. However; I found myself very; very task saturated with new hire FO; who spoke and understood English well; but somehow had a disconnect understanding or reading back ATC instructions. I think he was listening in English; thinking and translating in [a foreign language]; then translating back to English. Too much going on in his head; very poor results. I found myself very busy clearing up even simple instructions and communication problems; along with the normal; or sub-normal; new hire task loading. I was quite simply doing the best I could; but came up short.


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


Synopsis: A B737 flight crew reported that ATC gave them descent clearance and the aircraft failed to descend using automation.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SEQU.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON SEQU
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: [We were] flying into Quito on the RNAV RNP Runway 35 approach. VMC conditions; I was pilot not flying. Airplane was in VNAV and LNAV and the autopilot was engaged. We were told to report DEVAS inbound. I had my head down at DEVAS while tuning the radio frequency to make the report to Tower. I heard the warning 'Terrain... pull up.' As I was looking up the Captain pulled back on the yoke and the warning went away. I looked outside and at the instruments and did not see any indication that we were too low. We were above glide path and the runway and ground lights were visible. The Captain resumed the approach and we landed without incident.


Second narrative: I was the pilot flying conducting the approach beginning with at PATCO into Quito. We were kept a little high over PATCO but were re-established on the VNAV path and on speed shortly after the fix. Inbound from ANBUR or speed ranged from 170-175 KTS with flaps 10. About 3 mile from DEVAS we selected Gear Down and selected flaps 30 about 1 mile from DEVAS. Just inside of DEVAS we received a Terrain Warning followed by a Pull Up command. We were on VNAV Path; on speed; and above the VASI with the runway in sight in clear conditions. As I pulled up the aircraft went into CWS pitch as the warnings ceased. Only green terrain indications were noted at the aircraft symbol. With the warnings gone and prior to me initiating the CFIT recovery maneuver we were still in a position to safely land so with the concurrence of the First Officer we did so without event.


Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew reported conducting the escape maneuver in response to an EGPWS TERRAIN PULL UP alert at 10;400 FT on the SEQU RNP RNAV Runway 35 just inside DEVAS even though the aircraft was in VNAV PATH above the VASI.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Government
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During triple ILS monitored approaches at DEN it is tricky to get BKF departures out safely without conflicting with DEN traffic. We have an SOP procedure that is not being followed. It first states that the Front Line Manager (FLM) shall call BKF Tower and advise them that DEN is in a Land North Monitored operation. BKF is then supposed to avoid departing Runway 14 (at DEN Traffic) as much as possible. None of this is happening. When traffic does depart 14 the coordination is very reckless. No approval is required. The DR4 Controller simply advises the monitors and they are required to get out of the way if needed. This was extremely difficult today since no call was made. The FLM walked over and said 'aircraft are rolling off 14 turning to a 200'. That's it.First; the FLM did not seem to know the procedure. Second; in these rare conditions; BKF Runway 14 departures should not be allowed unless the DEN FR Controllers can build a safe hole for these departures. Third; the 'I'm going to fly someone into your airspace and you need to get out of my way' coordination needs to be fixed.




Synopsis: Denver TRACON Controller reported that a SOP procedures are not being followed leading to unsafe situations.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Being vectored on a NON STAR arrival into IAH we were assigned runway 27. ATC was calling out speeds; headings and altitudes; our last speed assigned was 170 to REDOC; cleared for visual approach 27; contact Tower 135.15. When we contacted Tower he informed us to slow because we were overtaking preceding (2.5 miles ahead) aircraft by 20 kts. We configured and slowed to final approach speed flaps 5; approximately 140 kts. On glideslope at that point we were instructed to S-turn south; but before I could do that the aircraft rolled left violently startling myself and the FO. I immediately took action to recover wings level and the autopilot was sounding 'Auto Pilot; Auto Pilot'. I'm not sure if it kicked off or disengaged by my upset recovery inputs. I called out 'TOGA; flaps 2' and we got the aircraft climbing. Cleaned up to flaps 1; stabilized and re-automated. Our only explanation is we believe we encountered wake turbulence from the bigger Airbus ahead. We calmed ourselves and ATC brought us around for a normal approach and landing on runway 27. I would like to add that it was a very hectic day with ATC doing their best to bring all of thunderstorm delayed aircraft [in]; some with minimum fuel.[Suggest] slowing on our own if needed for safety.


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


Synopsis: EMB-175 flight crew reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence in trail of an Airbus on final approach to IAH.
Date: 202201
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were working [a flight] to ZZZ1 there was a spill of a red unknown liquid inside pit 4. Someone called Maintenance to see if they could identify what kind of liquid. Maintenance could not identify what kind a liquid and they refused to clean it. Then the Supervisor gave us the order to clean it and we (the crew working the flight) refused to do it because we did not know what type of liquid it was




Synopsis: Air carrier ground personnel reported an unidentified liquid spilled in cargo pit. Ramp personnel refused Supervisor's orders to clean up spill because liquid had not been identified.