elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: clear; 0
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A A
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: There was moderate turbulence all altitudes. I asked the prior controller to let me know when turbulence had lessened at higher altitudes so I could climb as I was at FL280. The next Controller cleared me to Flight Level 400. I confirmed the climb to 400. At about 36;600 feet I was asked by that Controller on frequency XYY.Z whether I wanted FL400 or FL360 or similar words. I remarked back that I was already cleared to FL400. He didn't respond. This Controller was very busy because everyone was asking for a different altitude. I confirmed the altitude assignment and before he even cleared me there he asked if I wanted that altitude. It was the only smooth altitude at that time.I think the best way to correct this is for the Government to get back to work and live with COVID. They were short staffed.




Synopsis: High Performance Aircraft Single pilot reported receiving confusing instructions from the Controller and believes COVID-19 ATC staffing issues were a factor.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Second aircraft: Widebody Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: LHD strip is closed; so all the operators from LHD are arriving/departing ANC. ANCs configuration was landing Runway 15; Departing Runway 15 and Runway 25L. The winds were strong out of the southeast. I was conducting OJT on Local Control. Ground Control informed us that Aircraft X was extremely unfamiliar and to make it simple he taxied the aircraft for departure from Runway 7L at Taxiway Echo with an expectation to turn left into LHD's Class D and then continue northbound.Aircraft X called ready; my trainee cleared him for takeoff. The pilot didn't respond. My Trainee tells him to make a left downwind departure. He doesn't respond. My Trainee keeps working the other aircraft. He cleared a departure from Runway 25L. He cleared a Heavy jet for takeoff Runway 15. Aircraft X asked about his left downwind; and says he's 'ready to go 7.' My Trainee clears him for takeoff with a more specific instructions to make a left turn into LHD's airspace. As he spooled up to takeoff; it looked like he was going to takeoff Runway 25R. I glance at my Trainee and see that he is looking away. I saw the heavy jet beginning to rotate just past midfield so there's no stopping him. I glanced back to Aircraft X and my suspicions were confirmed. I took the frequency and tried everything possible to tell Aircraft X to stop. He never responds to any of my transmissions and; being a small aircraft; is airborne within less than 100 feet from the intersection flying directly into the flight path of the Heavy jet departure we haven't told him about. I keep reiterating 'turn left turn left turn left' because at no time does his aircraft seem to be taking that instruction; and I think it is the absolute most basic way to attempt some sort of separation. He was issued the brasher statement.




Synopsis: ANC Tower Controller observed an aircraft departing the opposite direction runway it was supposed to depart from.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: [We were] cleared FMS Bridge Visual into San Francisco; Runway 28R. Approximately 7;000 FT began experiencing significant wake turbulence such that I disconnected autopilot and offset right of course and began slowing to achieve greater separation from preceding aircraft. To complicate matters we were assigned 250 KTS which is problematic and has a tendency to lead to an unstable approach. So rather than being high and fast I offset and reduced airspeed and tried to drop down to get out of the wake. Unfortunately I went below the 6;000 FT altitude restriction. We advised ATC that we were experiencing wake turbulence and that we were slowing and offsetting. The Controller sounded very skeptical stating that the other aircraft was an Airbus 319. We reiterated and he assigned us the offset and 180 KTS to the marker.


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


Synopsis: B737 flight crew experienced wake turbulence on arrival to SFO following an A319. They took evasive action and missed a crossing restriction as a result.
Date: 202107
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: FCC (Flight Control Computer)
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Avionics; Maintenance Repairman
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Software and Automation; Procedure; Manuals; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On Aircraft X [a Boeing 737-900ER] I installed two serviceable Flight Control Computers (FCCs) and performed the Line Replacement Unit (LRU) replacement test in [the] Digital Flight Control System (DFCS) bite in accordance with the manual. While finding the correct software for the FCCs the mechanics ran a test on the elevator tab control.  The test failed step 5 resulting in the trim tabs split when pushing the control forward or aft instead of them going the same direction like the test calls out for. All breakers were in and no flight deck effect showed. I found out that the preloaded software was 737 MAX. As soon as I installed the correct software the tabs worked correctly in accordance with the test. My concern is that if someone misses loading the software like the manual tells them to do that there might be a safety of flight issue that could result in loss of life. I know its not supposed to happen because the manual tells you to check it but in a high pressure situation or with low experience it could and I don't want to see something like that happen.




Synopsis: Maintenance technician conducting a line replacement test after installing two Flight Control Computers on a Boeing 737-900 discovered that the installed software was for the B-737 MAX.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SMO.Airport, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower SMO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation 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 Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called to depart Runway 21. I asked direction of flight. He answered something I did not recognize with a heavy accent so I approved him for standard right turn at the shoreline. He asked for frequency change. I did not observe his target but saw target on edge of Class B; slightly offshore and about to fly in front of departures off LAX in Class B (he had turned left and we are only 2 miles from Bravo offshore).  I issued an immediate left turn and suggested heading and told Ground Control to point out to LAX. After asking him several questions; it turns out his plan was to 'go out a bit and fly direct to SLI.' I suggested he return to the airport and [re-plan] his flight when it became apparent he had no idea how to get to the other side of Class B. I then had to help him enter the pattern and land because he flew the wrong way when instructed to make right traffic; (opposite direction on the downwind).We actually called the FBO where the aircraft is based and relayed info. They said he just bought aircraft; hopefully flight standards can help him.




Synopsis: Reporter describes an aircraft departing the airport and can't understand the aircraft; assumes what the pilot wants; then has to react as the aircraft almost violates the LAX Class Bravo.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HND.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZLA
ATC / advisory: TRACON L90; Tower HND
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Other ATP
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The HND ATIS for Henderson is not receivable by aircraft arriving to Henderson in the Southeast to East quadrant because of the mountain range just 3 miles east of Henderson; NV airport.  The antenna for the ATIS for HND must be relocated to the top of the mountain range.You will expect an air traffic accident because aircraft cannot get the information when Las Vegas approach is so busy that they cannot relay all the information to arriving VMC and Flight following aircraft.Please advise the authorities to take action. This is a hazardous situation.




Synopsis: Pilot reported the HND ATIS for Henderson is not receivable by aircraft arriving to Henderson in the Southeast to East quadrant because of the mountain range just 3 miles east of Henderson; NV airport.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class D ZZZ; Class E ZAN
ATC / advisory: Center ZAN
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
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
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Training in progress; R side trainee. Started briefing with Aircraft X cleared off of ZZZ with climb to 280. Aircraft X checks on out of 3;000 ft. Aircraft X is seen on radar with Mode C correlated to Alt leaving; but Aircraft X was not told he was radar identified. Trainee clears Aircraft X direct to ZZZZZ [fix] (less than 5 degree turn from filed and current course). Aircraft X was at approximately 3;800 ft. when trainee finished issuing clearance. Aircraft X was in a 4;000 foot Minimum IFR Altitude (MIA). Aircraft X continued on course without incident. Talked with trainee about not changing how he works during a briefing. Seemed like he felt rushed to get the briefing done and let the next controller in to work.




Synopsis: ZAN Controller reported developmental issued IFR clearance below the MVA.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were vectored for an ILS 22L; held up and asked to hold 180 knots to the marker. The final vector put us between GIMEE (D7.8; 2;500 feet) and BUZZD (D4.6; 1;500 feet) at 2;500 feet. We were cleared 190 heading; 2;500 feet until established; 180 knots until BUZZD; cleared ILS 22L. Just prior to LOC capture we were cleared the visual to 22L (high and fast). At the 500 foot call we were on LOC and glideslope; a little fast but correcting. Crossing the threshold we were stabilized; on airspeed. Weather was VFR.


Second narrative: We were being vectored for the ILS 22L at EWR by NY Approach with lots of other traffic and asked to keep 210 knots for a great deal of the vectoring. Approximately 14 miles out; we were cleared to maintain 2;500 feet until intercepting the LOC; 180 knots to BUZZD; cleared for the ILS 22L and told to contact the Tower. This left us high and fast. We used speed brakes and configured the aircraft as we slowed; but at 500 feet; we were still about 15 knots above Vappr. The Tower had asked us to roll out past the usual turn-off at N or P2 and to use V to avoid getting caught behind the B757 that had landed prior to us. Because of this thinking; I chose not to call for a go-around. I believed; at that point; that going around and re-entering the busy NY airspace with another aircraft just departing 22R; was less safe than continuing to the landing. We crossed the threshold on speed with engines spooled up appropriately; and the remainder of the operation was uneventful. We tried too hard to meet the controller's airspeed and altitude instructions. We should not have accepted the turn inside of GIMEE unless we were farther away or already at 1;500 feet. The requirement to slow 30 to 40 knots and lose 1;000 feet of altitude that close in made it very difficult to meet the stabilized approach criteria. Had we dropped the gear first; before going to flaps 20; we might have made it easier on ourselves; but that changes our usual procedures; and I have found that particular change can lead to 'forgetting' the Before Landing Checklist.


Synopsis: A300 flight crew describes being vectored for the ILS 22L at EWR and kept high and fast; resulting in an unstabilized approach. The Captain elects to continue the approach rather than go-around due to traffic departing on the right runway.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During deice; due to the conditions we requested type 1 and 4 on wings and tail. 'Iceman' confirmed and they began spraying the aircraft. After circling the aircraft twice (what we thought was type 1 and then 4); 'Iceman' told us we were complete and gave us the times. I looked at the wing which did not appear green in color (consistent with type 4 fluid). He stated the start and stop times of both type 1 and 4 but not the type of fluid. We were told it was Polar Plus LT; which we didn't have specific data on so we used the generic type 4 times for the conditions at hand. Upon further research; Polar Plus LT is a type 1 fluid and I believe that we never received type 4 at all. This station has a tough time keeping employees and they were trying to push out/deice 3 aircraft within a short time frame. They are always shorthanded and seem to struggle with basic aircraft ramping operations; let alone deicing. Perhaps lack of training or experience. I also should have put my foot down when I saw the lack of green hue on the wings consistent with type 4. Retrain the operations personnel on proper deicing methods and the importance that the correct fluids are applied.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-200 flight crew reported they requested to be deiced with Type 1 and Type 4; but were only serviced with Type 1.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 152
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I departed Runway XX with a student for a flight lesson. We turned left and Tower assigned heading of 030 and [to] contact Departure. Shortly thereafter; for unknown reasons; the engine dropped from full power ~2300RPM to ~1500RPM for about 5 seconds. I immediately pushed the nose down; took controls from my student with a 3 way handoff; turned toward the field; and [requested priority handling] in the turn back to the airport. At this point the engine smoothed out and seemed to be operating normally; however I was not taking any chances. Another aircraft that was not involved requested the controller to repeat an instruction; and with my close proximity to to the field; being less than a mile; flying toward departing traffic; I decided to switch to Tower and not repeat myself on approach frequency. After switching; Tower says 'Aircraft X what are you doing?' In an obviously concerned voice. I stated I was [requesting priority handling] and landing Runway XY. He pointed out the traffic on the departure end of Runway XX. I had the traffic in sight before he said that. I called visual with the traffic and stated I was landing XY; which then; Tower cleared me to land. I made an uneventful landing on Runway XY and taxied back to the ramp to park.




Synopsis: C-152 Instructor reported an air return due to engine power loss on initial climb.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBN.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SBN
ATC / advisory: Tower SBN
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were set up to fly a visual approach on one runway; but the wind spread increased and was reported gusting. So we elected to fly a visual to a runway more aligned with the wind. ATC said to advise the field in sight; but we were still IMC so I said we would advise when were able. We came out of the clouds and called the field in sight; and were immediately cleared for a visual and told to contact Tower. However; when we came out of the clouds; there was a group of towers at our 12 o'clock; and I verbalized to the other pilot that we were headed for them. We started to descend and I could tell we were getting closer to the towers and once he saw them; he started a turn away from the towers. At this time [we] received a 'Caution Obstacle' aural message. The flying pilot disconnected the autopilot and climbed away from the towers and the message quickly cleared While still VMC; the clouds were approximately 1;000 - 1;200 ft. above the highest obstacle; which meant that the time available to see and avoid obstacles was very short after coming out of the clouds. ATC vectoring us towards the towers in IMC and then quickly clearing us for a visual approach once we were in VMC exacerbated the issue. During our approach briefing; identifying the highest obstacle on the approach chart would have also helped to mitigate this threat.A more thorough approach briefing including a notation of the highest obstacles in the area would have been appropriate for this approach. A slightly different vector from ATC; or at least a communication of the obstacles would; while not entirely necessary; have helped to enhance situational awareness.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported an inflight near miss with a group of towers during a visual approach.