elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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 Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection; Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We received an 'expect NOTOC' ACARS message during preflight. Once the pushback crew was on the headset I asked about the NOTOC and was told that we had two Personal Parcel Shipments (PPS) with a UN1845 that were marked 'dry ice exempt' that did not require a NOTOC. I wasn't aware of any exemptions for dry ice so I called and conferred with my Dispatcher. Finding no dry ice exemption in the FOM we called the pilot HAZMAT hotline number located in the FOM (Cargo Operations Control) where it was confirmed that a NOTOC was required. A NOTOC was received in short order but it took us about 30 minutes off the gate to get a revised DG (dangerous goods) revised Load Closeout. Incorrectly labeled dry ice shipment caused the problem. Reporter suggests correct Information regarding Personal Parcel Shipment limitations be provided when shipping dry ice.




Synopsis: Captain reported NOTOC received after Captain corrected ground personnel misunderstanding that NOTOC was not required.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on HLYWD ONE arrival to LAX we were cleared the ILS 25L. Once on the glideslope; we began to encounter moderate wake turbulence (significant pitch and roll excursions) from the aircraft we were following. At this point; I disconnected the autopilot and manually flew about a dot high on the glideslope. At approximately 14 miles from the runway we were told that the approach clearance was canceled and to maintain 4000 feet and track the localizer inbound. I called for both flight directors off then on and then VOR/LOC and V/S to 4000 feet. We were asked to visually identify an aircraft on a close in base for Runway 25R. We were then told to descend to 3100 ft and again asked to visually identify the aircraft still on a base for 25R. There was smog obscuring visibility and we never saw the aircraft. TCAS traffic display was also not showing a target. In the descent we were told to go around and given a left turn to a heading of 140 and climb to 4000'. We began the go-around procedure but did not get 4000' set in the ALT SEL window of the MCP before climbing through 4000'. I leveled at 4400 feet and began a descent back down to 4000 feet. We notified ATC. At this point we were told that the aircraft inbound had declared a medical emergency and that was the reason for their short approach to 25R. We were cleared the visual to 25L and landed without further incident.




Synopsis: B737NG first Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on approach into LAX. ATC directed a go-around; and the flight overshot the cleared altitude during the go-around.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: S46.TRACON, WA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: TRACON S46
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Working arrival sectors combined during evening arrival push. Very busy with multiple IFR inbounds as well as VFR advisory services. I did not notice the conflict between Aircraft X and the VFR target until the Conflict Alert sounded. I issued a traffic alert; although it was late and I mixed up the appropriate order of the phraseology. It was all I could do at that point. NUW approach later called for a point-out on a VFR target that I believed was involved in this occurrence; so I asked the controller for the call sign and they identified the aircraft as Aircraft Y. I asked the NUW controller to pass along that the aircraft had flown outbound along an active approach course for BFI and that such actions are not necessarily the safest way to operate. FALCON indicated the closest proximity between Aircraft X and the first VFR target was 0.46 miles laterally and 600 feet vertically. As Aircraft X continued down the localizer the next VFR target which the Conflict Alert sounded for passed within 0.44 NM laterally and 700 feet vertically. Aircraft X spent at least 4 miles of the last 11 miles the aircraft flew in a Conflict Alert status with a target nearby.Something needs to change. The VFR aircraft are transiting a very narrow; busy corridor of airspace and are doing so without any communication with ATC. It is simply unsafe. The VFR aircraft in this area at the very least need to be in communication with ATC so that we can assign; as necessary; altitude restrictions ensuring the safety of all the aircraft involved. The solutions are not hard and while they are potentially more restrictive to VFR aircraft the bottom line is that what happens day in and day out in that airspace as it exists and operates now will eventually result in a very bad accident.




Synopsis: S46 TRACON Controller reported an aircraft on final approach for BFI conflicted with VFR aircraft transiting the approach course not in communication with ATC.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Waste Water Disposal System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors; MEL
Primary problem: MEL

Narrative: Operated Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1. Had MEL 38-XX-X (lavs not usable below 16;000 ft). At cruise Flight Attendant said no lavs were flushing. Contacted Dispatch and patched into maintenance to discuss problem. Maintenance was unable to find a fix; Dispatch and crew decided best option was to divert to ZZZ2. Ran QRH for diversion checklist; as well as overweight landing since we were overweight by 3;000 lbs. Requested Runway XXR. Landed [Runway] XXR taxi to gate with no issues.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported being forced to divert when it was discovered during cruise that the lavs would not flush.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Airliner 99
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Check Pilot; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: All operations were normal until we had an indication of an engine fire warning in flight. During cruise flight at 9000 ft. MSL while flying through light rain; the left T-Handle; indicating a fire; illuminated. At that point my trainee (Pilot Flying) performed the immediate action items per our checklist. The light remained illuminated past 20 seconds. I decided we should [advise ATC] and perform an engine shut down. I [advised] ATC and planned to land at ZZZ. I notified Dispatch of my decision over company radio. My trainee completed the engine shut down under my supervision. Once we were established on [the] ILS Runway XXL at 2000 ft. and 5 miles from the final approach fix; I took controls of the airplane and landed. The reported ceiling was 6000 ft. overcast. We had the airport in sight 5 miles out; at ZZZZZ.  There were no other indications of a fire throughout the event.  I believe rain caused the plane to have a false indication of a fire. The trainee verbally identified the fire handle illumination as I saw it and continued with the engine fire warning in flight memory items and checklist.


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


Synopsis: A Beechcraft Model 99 flight crew reported a fire indication in the left engine; resulting in an in flight engine shutdown and diversion.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I approached and successfully set down the main landing gear during a 2-point landing. As the plane slowed and the tail came down a series of corrections were made using rudder/brake input in an attempt to maintain directional control down the runway. These corrections became over-corrections leading to a 'ground loop'. During the course of the ground loop the plane's lower left wing tip made contact with the runway. No people were injured and no airport property was damaged.These events arose from a series of over corrections made during landing. Contributing factors included the pilot's limited time in the plane and large difference from the previous types of planes flown. Corrective actions for the future would include further training with a qualified instructor to gain the required skills and confidence to land this type of aircraft.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a ground loop during landing due to rudder over control; which resulted in wing tip contact with the runway. Pilot inexperience with the aircraft was reportedly a major factor.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Malfunctioning; Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Without selection RTU changed off original frequency on base into ATL.  We noticed voice change and selected last remembered frequency.  Turned onto final [and] asked for correct frequency.  Returned to Approach.  If continued we would have caused a conflict with 27L approach.  Last specified instruction was to expect to follow B757 with one more turn so we felt that was the best way to avoid the other aircraft on final.


Second narrative: While receiving vectors from ATL Approach on a heading of 360 to intercept Runway 28 final approach course; frequency dropped out on its own.  The crew attempted to re establish comm but frequency had been lost. Contacted prior frequency and turned to intercept but overshot final to the north.  We re established on a heading of 230 to intercept final for Runway 28.Overshot final on runway 28 because of loss of frequency and consequent lack of final vector to join final app course.  Put same frequency on radio 1 as well as on radio 2 in case last frequency on radio 1 goes out.


Synopsis: CRJ200 Flight crew reports an inadvertent frequency change during approach causing an localizer overshoot before communication can be reestablished. See ACN 1105158.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching KEGGS on the ORCKA2 RNAV Departure; while in VNAV; ATC notified us that we were not meeting the climb restriction. Aircraft was in VNAV with ECON climb selected and accelerating prior to disengaging the auto pilot. It should have been climbing at a slower speed rather than the ECON climb speed of 320 KIAS to achieve the required climb angle. The speed of 320 was priority over the altitude. I believe a tailwind also compounded the problem. We were about 12000 MSL when ATC notified us that we would miss the 13000 restriction. It is unknown to me exactly how far off we would be at KEGGS; but I knew we wouldn't make it and realized my mistake. Even still I disconnected the autopilot and began to trade excess airspeed for altitude to attempt to make the restriction but then immediately encountered wake turbulence from the B777 ahead of us. We missed the altitude restriction mostly because of VNAV leveling us off to accelerate. But to make matters worse; when I disconnected the autopilot and got into the wake of the preceding aircraft I couldn't be as aggressive to correct as would have been needed. Once out of the wake; I put the aircraft into a 280 KIAS climb and got back onto the profile; easily making the next restriction of 15000 or above at COOPP. ATC never said anything else to us about the event. I should have noticed sooner; corrected the flight path and asked ATC for relief from the restriction.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported missing a crossing restriction on climbout from LAX citing VNAV performance and a wake turbulence encounter as contributing.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Fog; Rain; 8
Light: Night
Aircraft: Caravan 208B
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored onto final for Runway 28 into ORD; we were in solid IMC all the way. Our instruction given was to cross WAVIE at 5;000 FT; cleared for the ILS 28. When the approach was to be activated in the GPS unit; something gave an error and the GPS was not indicating correctly; causing a momentary loss of situational awareness. I knew we were established on the localizer; but for some reason thought we were past WAVIE at that point when in fact I was still about 3 miles away and had not crossed it yet. While the issue was solved in short order; during that time of getting the GPS to indicate properly; I allowed the airplane to descend down to 4;600 FT instead of maintaining 5;000 FT when I thought I was further ahead on the approach than I actually was. After getting a heads up from ATC to climb back to 5;000 FT; I initiated a climb and was back at 5;000 FT within 10 seconds. I never received any traffic alerts; TCAS advisories or any other collision warnings from the onboard equipment or ATC. Some of the factors that resulted in the deviation was losing situational awareness due to the GPS not sequencing properly; not engaging the autopilot while correcting the issue to hold altitude. For the future; I will be sure to make better use of the autopilot if something like this should happen as well as simply flying raw data in the event of a GPS malfunction on approach.




Synopsis: A C208 pilot reported descending early after being cleared for the ILS while attempting to correct a problem with the GPS. ATC notices the deviation and the reporter corrects back to 5;000 FT and continues with the ILS approach.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had just received our position briefing; at this time I plugged in being the trainer. I looked up and saw an aircraft exit Runway XX at Charlie. At that time I rerouted my headset cord around some hidden hooks so the cord doesn't get in the way of the trainee. As this happen the trainee made a transmission to Aircraft X to taxi via Charlie; cross [RWY] YY; then Mike 3 Mike to the ramp. The pilot read back everything correctly. At this point I had just finished routing my cord (5 seconds or less) I then look up and see an aircraft exiting [RWY] XX on Charlie had stopped. Aircraft Y was cleared for takeoff Runway XX and was rolling down the runway. Another aircraft had just exited XY at Charlie and was taxiing fast towards Runway XX. At this point everyone was yelling stop. The Ground Trainee yelled stop. At this point Aircraft X stopped in the middle of Runway XX. Local had told Aircraft Y to stop. Aircraft Y stopped a few thousand feet before Aircraft X. What happened is the trainee got the aircraft mixed up and used the wrong call sign. Aircraft Z exited Runway XX at Charlie; and Aircraft X exited Runway XY at charlie. The pilot of Aircraft X read back cross Runway YY at Charlie but instead crossed Runway XX at Charlie without clearance. The controller mixed up two aircraft both taxiing on Charlie. Aircraft X crossed Runway XX at Charlie had not been given clearance to cross that active runway but instead was suppose to cross Runway YY.




Synopsis: Instructing Controller reported experiencing a ground conflict due to Developmental using the wrong call sign between aircrafts.