elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: YSSY.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 3 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Center YMMM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue 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 Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flying into YSSY we were vectored off of the CAPS One arrival and given headings; airspeed and descents by the Sydney Controller. We were then given an airspeed of 275 knots and given direct to MARLN and continue the MARLN One arrival. After passing MARLN we were given a descent to 8;000 feet. Between MARLN and WHALE we leveled off at 8;000 feet and were given a frequency change. Near WHALE the new controller; whom we had just checked in with gave us a descent to 6;000 feet. The Captain read back the clearance 'Departing 8;000 feet for 6;000 feet' and I started a 1;000 FPM descent with the vertical speed. Passing about 6;800 feet MSL the controller stated the bottom of his control area was 7;500 feet; climb and maintain 8;000 feet. The Captain replied to the controller that the controller had told us to descend and maintain 6;000 feet and that he had replied 'Departing 8;000 feet for 6;000 feet'. The controller said 'Yeah; but I didn't know you were going to do it'. We climbed and maintained 8;000 feet. The rest of the STAR; approach and landing was uneventful. I thought this occurrence was possibly the controller's mistake; but bizarre to say the least.


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


Synopsis: Large Transport flight crew; given a descent from 8000 feet to 6000 feet by Approach Control; were told at 6800 feet that they were supposed to be at 8000 feet.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 2
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While being vectored to ILS runway 24R at LAX; the So Cal controller asked us to follow another Heavy. At the time; there was a thick layer of smoke from the fire to the west between our altitude (3000 MSL) and airport; and while LAX was reporting 10 SM vis; the inflight visibility was 1-2 SM. Turning right base; we had the traffic to follow in sight; but he soon entered the smoke and we lost sight. The controller asked us multiple times if we had the airport in sight; which we did not due to the heavy layer of smoke. Due to the distraction of trying to follow an aircraft we could no longer see; as well as trying to locate the airport through the smoke; we undershot the localizer and the controller appropriately broke us out and re-vectored us. The second time we concentrated on capturing and flying the localizer. Once we got 4-5 miles from the runway; the visibility was fine and we continued the approach mostly via visual references.The use of a visual approach and directions to follow traffic in front may not have been appropriate; as the inflight visibility didn't support visual flight conditions until much lower and closer to the airport. The LAX ATIS didn't really indicate the impact of the smoke; as the visibility was 8-10 miles below the smoke layer. I was Pilot Flying; in retrospect I should have directed the Pilot Not Flying to tell the approach controller that the flight visibility didn't support visual approaches.




Synopsis: The Captain of a transport aircraft on a training flight reported that smoke from nearby fire obscured portions of the final approach segments even though the airport was reporting VFR visibilities.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Making our approach into ZZZ we encountered severe turbulence due to high winds and convective weather. During our decent below 10;000 feet the aircraft was unable to maintain below 250 even though the captain as the PF (Pilot Flying) was slowing to approximately 220-230 kts steady below. The wind turbulence was severe enough to where we decided to let maintenance know of the issue and ground the plane for inspection. As the PM (Pilot Monitoring) I made calls out to the captain to inform him of altitude changes while he made changes in power to control the event. After approximately 5;000 feet we got out of the turbulence and started to regain control of our speed and landed with no other events.Maintained good CRM while I as the PM was calling out speeds and altitude fluctuations the captain as the PF was making corrective actions to try and control the wind shift and not push the plane past the turbulence penetration speed. [I suggest asking] Center for more advisable routes to avoid severe turbulence. We used our radar to avoid heavy precipitation and took an alternate route compared to the aircraft that went in front of us but was still unable to find smoother air.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 First Officer reported exceeding 250 knots below 10;000 feet due to severe turbulence.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SAT.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C SAT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SAT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At takeoff clearance; given turn left 040; then on roll given runway heading 127 as previous traffic was turned northeast. Climbing off airport boundary given turn left 060. AP (Autopilot) on so commanded turn to 060. Then AP chimes off so I re-engage. I missed resetting heading bug so AP continued turning left thru assigned 060 before I recognized error. Immediately turned off AP and hand flew back to 060. Departure called and inquired heading as I re-established heading. At this moment got a RA (Resolution Advisory) to climb 2000+ to solve conflict. I was already doing near this amount of rate of climb. My estimate was I passed over traffic 300 ft. At the moment did not get a good recollection of the actual altitude.I got behind airplane with heading changes; AP failing off at inopportune time; and slow recognition response. I have not flown this aircraft in 30 days and it showed. Rest of the day went well. Called SAT TRACON upon arrival at destination and was told nothing came up post event. No excuses; I just was behind the departure and airplane at this moment.




Synopsis: BE-300 Captain reported near mid-air collision after takeoff.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Straight & level at 17;000 [feet]; IMC on autopilot in NAV/ALT mode; light-mod turbulence. In mod turbulence with updraft; autopilot failed and disconnected; aircraft climbed approx 400 feet.  ATC noted altitude change; provided altitude readout and altimeter setting; we responded that autopilot failed in turbulence and correcting. Autopilot was reset and performed normally for the remainder of the flight. The autopilot has had similar failures over the past few weeks; all reported to Chief Pilot and [Maintenance/Management]. He responded on most reports that 'we'll get someone to look at it' but crew was not informed if any maintenance checks; and scheduled flights continued despite reports.  After the above instance was reported with mention of ATC comment; maintenance was scheduled and 3 more legs were flown before delivering the aircraft to the shop on the evening of DATE. I am concerned that [Maintenance/Management] is reluctant to take the aircraft out of service for pilot squawks. We have had previous conversations where our ability to recognise situations indicating a need for maintenance  were questioned; we were threatened for 'challenging' him; advised that he had hired us and he could fire us.




Synopsis: PC-12 flight crew reported the aircraft autopilot malfunctioned. They reported encountering resistance from Management to address maintenance issues.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is actually 2 events. First; on the departure off ZZZ1 there were 3 aircraft in trail climbing out: Air Carrier W; then Air Carrier X (aircraft 1); then Air Carrier Y (aircraft 2). ZZZ1 Approach issued Air Carrier Y 250 KTS to keep in trail spacing behind Air Carrier X. Air Carrier Y overtook Air Carrier X despite the speed restriction of 250 KTS. I was training an R-Side Developmental at the time. He issued 270 KTS to Air Carrier X and then I keyed up and issued Air Carrier Y 30 degrees left. We also stopped the Air Carrier Y at FL180; and requested a report out of FL190 on Air Carrier X. It seems that either Air Carrier Y was going faster than 250 KTS or Air Carrier X was climbing at a reduced rate of 220 KTS or maybe even less. We did not ask the pilot of Air Carrier X his climbing speed. Separation was about 5 miles or 1;000 FT; but it was close to being a loss of separation. Meanwhile; another sector called to point out an Emergency aircraft that was descending at a rapid rate. They said he was descending to 16;000 FT. I informed him of traffic; Air Carrier Y at FL180. The emergency aircraft was descending so quickly that the altitude was XXX'ed out. He said that a different Sector was actually talking to him. Called traffic to the Air Carrier Y; informing him that the emergency would be descending through his altitude. The other sector called back to say that the emergency was through 13;000 FT. Air Carrier Y never reported the Emergency aircraft in sight. Be aware of reduced rates of speed during the climbing portion of the flight.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller providing OJT described a near loss of separation event when two in trail departure aircraft varied from expected speeds. The situation was complicated by an emergency aircraft descending at a very rapid rate.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CKB.TRACON, WV
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D CKB
ATC / advisory: TRACON CKB
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
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: Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X departed and checked in with approach climbing to 5;000 feet. Aircraft X was radar identified but I was unable to pick up his Mode C right away. When I did pick up his Mode C it was reading between 1;800 feet to 2;000 feet. I immediately advised him of his altitude and told him the MVA was 4;900 feet. A moment later he [notified] his cargo door opening. I asked him if he needed any assistance and to advise having airport in sight. He was having a hard time communicating with me due to his low altitude so he was cutting in and out. He did get airport in sight and I terminated his radar and switched him over to Flight Service Station (FSS). I called FSS airport to verify that he did make it safely on the ground.It all happened so quickly that my main thought was to help him get on the ground as quickly and safely as possible that I had forgotten to re-clear him to the airport and issue a Visual Approach clearance. For future reference; I will remember to reclear aircraft and issue his approach clearance.




Synopsis: CKB Controller reported an aircraft returned to the airport due to an opened cargo door. The Controller forgot to issue an approach clearance back to the airport.
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Aircraft: Robinson R44
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I leveled off at approximately 800 feet approximately 3 to 4 minutes into a part 91 tour at which point I noticed my engine tachometer had dropped to zero and a sputtering sound was coming from the engine. Immediately by low RPM warning horn came on for the main rotor. I reduced collective and tried to maintain rotor RPM and initiated 180deg auto rotation. I informed my passenger that we would be making an emergency landing. I approached the landing area at approximately 65 knots and put in aft cyclic to induce a flare at approximately 25 feet AGL in an unimproved grass field; started to pull collective to cushion impact. I leveled the aircraft and continue to raise the collective until impacting. The helicopter bounced approximately 15 feet and settled into the grass. I checked my passenger to ensure he was OK; then applied the rotor brake to stop the main rotor. Once main rotor was stop I got out of the helicopter and check for damage. No visible damage was found. I contacted the Company operation center to coordinate a helicopter to pick up my passenger. After approximately 20 minutes I conducted a thorough preflight inspection of the aircraft to include all fluids finding nothing I attempted to restart the aircraft. I was able to restart the aircraft but the engine was not operating correctly to warrant flight. It would start but continually tried to die. I was picked up by an additional company aircraft and my aircraft remains in the field waiting for further guidance from the company.




Synopsis: The Pilot of a R44 experienced an engine malfunction that resulted in an off airport landing.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On BOOVE1 arrival at DFW. Given vectors for spacing. Observed a large aircraft joining the arrival ahead of us. TCAS indicated 10 miles spacing behind the large aircraft. Day VMC conditions. Vectored to rejoin the arrival. While descending via the arrival profile we encountered light turbulence. About a minute later we encountered rapid onset of light chop followed by a sharp rolling force associated with wake turbulence. Total roll about 25 degrees. Disconnected the autopilot and climbed above the vertical track. The First Officer (FO) inquired as to the type of aircraft we were following. We were advised it was an Airbus A380. FO advised we would be offsetting slightly for wake turbulence. I noted the wind was generally 220/20; a slight quartering tailwind along the route. We ascertained that probably our vertical profile crossed that of the A380. Flew the track but stayed above our vertical track. No more encounters with wake turbulence. During the post flight at the gate the number 1 flight attendant inquired as to what type of turbulence we had encountered. She was in the First Class cabin and was thrown into a passenger who was seated at the time. Luckily she reported no injuries to herself or the passenger. We were never closer than 10 miles to the A380.Suggestions: Review the operational impact of a lateral offset of 1 mile on arrivals. This is within the capabilities of most of our aircraft. This won't address the problem of following a Super Heavy on the final approach to the runway. An advisory for caution to all crews might be appropriate.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported encountering wake on arrival to DFW in 10-mile trail of an A380 that resulted in a 25-degree bank.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 6
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rudder Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departed runway; was assigned 2;000 feet; runway heading and expect vectors.Upon departure experienced trim pulling to the right and difficulty in controlling heading and altitude. Suspected trim malfunction and disengaged autopilot. Tried to assess cause; when unable to identify; requested return to airport. Flew heading and altitude assigned as best as possible and returned to airport.Retested the autopilot; trim; heading etc. once on ground power to try to recreate the malfunction and was unable.After complete check out of FMS; Autopilot and Flight Director; relaunched and flew flight filed for with no issues.




Synopsis: The pilot of a C525 reported control issues suspected to be due to a trim malfunction. After returning to the field; and test of the systems; no issues were identified. The aircraft departed again with no further problems.