elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BRW.Airport, AK
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E BRW
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The purpose of this report is to advise that at Barrow airport (BRW); [Commercial Charts] and NOS airport diagram plates indicate that the PAPI for Runway 07 is located on the left side of the runway. While approaching Runway 07 at BRW; however; I noticed that the PAPI is actually on the right side of Runway 07.I suggest that the appropriate airport diagram and information charts be updated to show the correct location of the BRW Runway 07 PAPI.




Synopsis: A pilot reported that the BRW PAPI is located on the runway's right side; but a Commercial and NOS charts for BRW indicate it is located on the left side.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff received a call from cabin stating that they were experiencing smoke and fumes in the cabin primarily by door 3 left. Continued with the after takeoff profile and checklist; continued climb to above 10;000 feet. Received a second call from the cabin regarding the smoke and fumes; and sent one of the relief pilots to the cabin to assess the situation. As the cockpit door opened and closed we immediately smelled the fumes coming from the cabin. Shortly thereafter; the relief pilot called to report a fireworks-like smell in the cabin; no smoke but plenty of fumes. At that point we elected to return to ZZZ; [notified ATC;] and commenced fuel dump. Approach offered us an immediate return to Rwy XXR; but I declined since we did not have smoke and the situation did not seem to be escalating. We dumped fuel as we flew the downwind for rwy XYL. We made a SATCOM call to dispatch and requested landing data be uplinked for rwy XYL at our projected landing weight after fuel dumping. We experienced several status messages; and a pack overheat as we turned final. We turned the pack off and continued the approach to a normal landing; taxi in and parking. Excellent CRM and coordination with ATC and dispatch made this a successful and safe return to field.


Second narrative: Very shortly after takeoff; while the airplane was not cleaned up; we received a call from door 3R that there was a very strong odor smell of electrical burning; plastic burning; and smoky smell. We did not smell anything in the cockpit at that time. We set up a blocker to send an IRO (International Relief Officer) back to investigate and immediately upon opening the cockpit door the smell entered the cockpit. We discussed and agreed to air return at that point. The flight attendants accurately described it as the smell of 'fireworks.' We ran the checklists and procedures to return back to the airport and landed without further incident. During our return the right pack was turned off when the airplane printed out 'right pack overheat' off the printer.


Synopsis: B777 flight crew reported air return shortly after takeoff due to fumes in the cabin.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Aircraft X departed CUT VFR. Called airborne asking for IFR to BIL. I issued squawk. Noticed aircraft filed alt FL080. MIA [is] FL093. I asked pilot if he would be able [to get to] FL100 as a final altitude due to MIA [Minimum IFR Altitude]. He responded negative and that he was IMC climbing through FL075. I instructed him to maintain VFR and reminded him he did not have an IFR clearance. I alerted the FLM [Front Line Manager]. I was given a D side.Aircraft X descended to FL073 and said he was trying to stay VFR. I asked if he could see the ground. He said yes and there was a cloud layer at FL076. I called RCA Approach; whose airspace he was in to see if they had a lower MVA [Minimum Vectoring Altitude] that would help. They did not. I asked pilot if he would be able to maintain terrain obstruction clearance and climb to FL093. He said negative. I asked intentions. He said he'd try to stay VFR until I could give him a clearance. I suggested he turn back to his departure airport. He said he thought he could stay VFR.I told him the general direction and altitudes of the MIA's that we're going to stair step down to the west as he flew out of the Black Hills. I explained what those meant in relation to the ground or obstacles. He descended to FL071. I suggested a course due west that would get him to lower terrain quicker if he could maintain VFR on that heading. He said he would. He asked about mountains and I re-explained the area terrain. He asked about the MIA that was no factor and I responded. He crossed the boundary into my FL090 MIA and was at FL073 so I knew he was above terrain and obstacles in that area. I [tried to advise for the pilot] and issued him an IFR clearance with a climb to 9;000 [feet]. He complied.The pilot called in and the FLM made sure he understood VFR flight rules.




Synopsis: ZDV Center Controller reported an aircraft departing VFR; needing IFR; and entering a lower Minimum IFR Altitude area.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 50
Aircraft: Learjet 60
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: Tower MDW
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On departure from MDW; assigned runway 4L. Upper altitude 3;000; we experienced moderate to severe turbulence. It was extremely windy; gusting 30 plus kts. We departed within moments of a B737; and were assigned the same departure and altitude. The autopilot was engaged at 1;000 feet AGL; a normal procedure; it failed to capture the assigned altitude; and may have exceeded altitude by as much as 400 feet. The auto pilot was deselected; and flown manually back to 3;000 feet. At some point it was also found that the number 1 FMS had gone to 'Maneuver' mode; from the previously selected 'Nav' and would not reset. This was only noticed after the aircraft was being manually flown. The copilot side auto pilot and the number2 FMS was then selected; and appeared normal.I am not sure how or if the FMS failure might have contributed to the incursion; but it was very coincidental; that the 2 events happened together. The incursion may of only been caused by the 'general' turbulence; or by the wake from the departing B737. There were several attempts to reset the FMS; such as pressing Nav; Fltplan; Fuel buttons; etc. The unit was eventually powered down; and then seemed normal.There was no ATC exchange about this; only prior to take off 'caution wake turbulence'.I discussed the situation with my copilot; no other corrective action could have been taken in the circumstance. I will discuss the FMS failure with the manufacturer ASAP.




Synopsis: A Lear 60 Captain reported overshooting assigned altitude departing MDW in windy and turbulent conditions. Wake turbulence from preceding B737 may have also been a factor.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OTH.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower OTH
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We landed safely at OTH and turned right to exit the runway.  Tower informed us there were yellow chevrons on the pavement; meaning we were not authorized to taxi off of Runway 4 at that location. Tower then gave us taxi clearance to our gate.The chevrons; which lead up to the intersecting runway; were not easy to see.  There is pavement leading up to runway 13 that looks like a taxiway available for exit; but it actually leads up to the start of runway 13.I will confirm a turn off of the current runway onto an intersecting runway with ATC before the Captain initiates a turn.  I will brief this threat in the future; prior to landing in OTH. The intersection past A is not a taxiway; it is pavement leading up to a runway.


Second narrative: Poorly painted yellow chevrons are painted on the overrun. Not listed on Jeppesen plate as unusable. Shows up as gray on Jeppesen plate and looks like a taxiway. Closer examination shows that it ends at A - HS1 refers to taxiing on A.Should have rolled to the end of the runway and exited at the end instead of on the crossing runway. Jeppesen plate should note that runway 13/31 is not usable for taxi/takeoff or any operations past taxiway A.


Synopsis: After landing at OTH; an air crew turned off the runway at an unusable intersecting runway. Poorly painted yellow chevrons are painted on the overrun. Not listed on Jeppesen plate as unusable.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were climbing out of ZZZ with vectors. Cleared from 3;000 to 6;000 feet. We both called out 5;000 for six thousand feet to go. I was head down turning on the radar; there was weather ahead.  The 3rd crew member in the jump seat called out altitude.  I looked up as we were climbing through 6;200 feet.  Pilot flying recovered about 6;300; then quickly returned to 6;000.  ATC asked us to confirm our altitude; which we did at 6;000 feet. Pilot fling was hand flying the airplane; which caused the altitude deviation.  His scan missed the altitude; even though we both confirmed 1;000 feet to go.  My suggestion is to have the autopilot on in low altitude high congestion areas.


Second narrative: I was Pilot Flying. Weather build ups in the area. Several step climbs. Pilot Monitoring was working radar. I was visually looking at weather. We both called 5;000 for 6;000 feet in the climb. I got distracted and overshot the assigned altitude by about 300 feet and made an immediate correction back to assigned 6;000 feet. ATC asked us to confirm 6;000 feet. No further issues. Continued uneventfully to destinationDue to COVID-19; our flying has been down considerably. I was hand flying to try to keep up my scan and hands on skills. I got distracted in the climbing turn while looking at build ups. I should have engaged the autopilot instead.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported overshooting altitude and then returning to assigned altitude. The Captain stated lack of flying was a contributing factor.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: TRACON P50
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A CRJ2 checked on my frequency (Departure) and immediately said they had received 'moderate wake turbulence' from the preceding departure. I asked the pilot to file a report on this event. The North Departure Controller had a wake turbulence report on Navajo position just a few minutes before this. This happens every day as PHX Tower uses 6;000/airborne and visual separation on every departure whether they are busy or not. I've filed several wake turbulence reports and I am actively trying to get my fellow controllers to report this every time. This is an unsafe procedure at PHX and a smaller aircraft is eventually going to have an accident due to wake turbulence at a low altitude. Stop visual departures on large aircraft.




Synopsis: P50 Controller voiced concern regarding the Tower wake separation techniques used with subsequent departures claiming the procedure is unsafe and results in wake turbulence encounters.
Date: 201407
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I punched in and went to the west break room. My name came up and I was assigned to Gate X for a departure; it also listed two part timers that were a later start time. I then went to my locker and got my company issued radio and scanner. I walked over to Gate X stopping at a nearby gate to pull the trip up and see who my crew was. As I was signing in I noticed the aircraft was being marshalled in. I closed down the computer to assist in the download and arrival of the aircraft. When I arrived to Gate X there were two guys from training and a bag runner who was behind the engine and looked shaken up. I inquired what had happened and was told he walked behind the engine while it was still running and was knocked over form the jet blast. I proceeded to assist in the downloading and scanning of inbound bags.




Synopsis: Ramper reports arriving at his assigned gate just after the aircraft arrives to be informed that a new ramp employee has walked behind a running engine and was knocked down.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; 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: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Landed at home airport with 7 knot crosswind. Was down and as I reached to raise the flaps up a gust of wind lifted the plane. As I was raising flaps I had also added aileron which caused the airplane to yaw/turn into the wind; by the time I had recovered I was off runway and hit [a] runway light. I didn't anticipate the wind being blocked by buildings and amount of crosswind that I would experience between and beyond buildings. In hitting the runway light a small amount of the left landing leg [fairing] was [wrinkled] just above step on gear leg. I didn't see any other damage to plane. I inspected the [broken] landing light and reviewed the surface of the runway for debris without walking onto surface and watching for traffic. Didn't see any on the runway. Wind was 270 at 7-9 knots. Landing on runway 36. 30 degrees flaps 65-70 knot landing speed for crosswind.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported a loss of directional control after landing in a light crosswind.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SLC.Airport, UT
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SLC
ATC / advisory: Tower SLC
Second aircraft: Learjet 45
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: B737NG was on short final Runway 35; within 1/2 mile. Learjet 45 was on a visual approach behind B737NG; the data tag did not indicate that the Learjet 45 was following or had the B737NG in sight. When Learjet 45 first checked in on my frequency; the separation was 3.75 miles; and the Learjet 45 was 70 KTS faster than the B737NG. In this situation the Learjet 45 needed to be 4 miles in trail of the B737NG; when the B737NG crossed the threshold. I called the traffic to the Learjet 45 in hopes that the pilot would be able to get B737NG ahead of him in sight so that I could apply visual separation before the required radar separation was lost. There was only about 4-5 seconds for this to be accomplished. The Lear 45's reply was 'looking.' Because he was unable to get the leading aircraft in sight in time; the B737NG crossed the threshold before I could send the Learjet 45 around. Right as the B737NG crossed the threshold the Learjet 45 reported the B737NG in sight. The Supervisor was aware of the situation the whole time; and told me to tell Learjet 45 to maintain visual separation and allow the Learjet 45 to land. I told the Learjet 45 'maintain visual separation; caution wake turbulence;' and allowed him to land.I requested time to complete my ATSAP report on the next day at the beginning of my shift; but was not given time to do so. I again requested time the following day at the beginning of my shift; but again was not given time to do so. There was little to no chance for me to fix the situation before the loss of separation. The TRACON Controller needs to either give more in-trail spacing so that I can meet the required radar separation; or have the trailing aircraft get the leading aircraft in sight before they change him to my frequency.




Synopsis: A loss of separation occurred when the Learjet; number two on final; was unable to declare the preceding B737NG in sight in a timely fashion.