elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During descent into our destination the airspeed indicators showed a difference of more than 25 knots. The Autopilot failed. Engine control faults were cycling. The anti-ice had been on for a minimum of 15 minutes before entering into the precipitation. Due to conflicting airspeed indications and altitude indications; the first attempt at a landing was abandoned by me calling go around; as we were not established and stable. The second attempt was successful; but we lost communications with ATC due to the radio interference from the weather. I believe that this was a circumstantial event; and that maintenance was a large factor; but earlier recognition of the flights disparities would have eased the situation.




Synopsis: A C-680 on descent in heavy precipitation developed a 25 knot airspeed discrepancy along with autopilot and engine control malfunctions. A go-around was executed from an unstabilized approach with airspeed and altitude discrepancies.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C PDX
ATC / advisory: Tower PDX
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Police / Security Involved
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on final to RWY 28R at PDX descending through 1;200 MSL when we saw a blue quad-copter drone pass off the left side of the aircraft. We saw the drone just as it passed and did not have to maneuver to avoid. I would estimate that it was within a wingspan distance; so roughly 100 from us at the same altitude. As passengers were deplaning; multiple passengers commented that they had seen the drone and wondered if we had seen it also. One passenger familiar with the area said that it was near the IKEA just east of PDX.


Second narrative: I was the flying pilot (FO) on flight to PDX. On final approach inside the marker I saw something blue on the left side (south) of the aircraft. We were about 3 miles from the runway and 900 ft. My first guess at the time was that the blue object was some balloons and I even brought that up during the approach. After landing and at the gate while the passengers were deplaning two passengers approached the cockpit absolutely convinced that a blue drone came really close to our aircraft during the approach. They themselves were familiar with drones and even stated the type (I believe they said it was a quadcopter). Because we saw something blue and they were convinced it was a drone and also stated the color blue my CA thought it wise to report the incident to Portland tower.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported a NMAC with a UAV on approach to PDX.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PUW.Airport, WA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Nothing bad actually happened. All the taxi charts in PUW are currently not accurate. Just as more of a heads up. Taxied to the ramp Via A3; A; D. Lucky weather was good so finding the correct taxiways were easy. But there is little to no guidance that with A4 and closed and the construction maligning getting to the ramp via A1 impassable the only way to access ramp is via A3. Documentation kinda explains the ramp construction; but nothing about to how to get to the ramp with the taxiways closed.Add a taxi diagram with the new A3 and D taxiway and warn crew about if they land [Runway] 5 and exit on A1 their will be no way to the ramp. If a crew lands [Runway] 5 they will need to back taxi to A3 and WSI there. If landing [Runway] 23; A3 is the only way off with A4 closed.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported the taxiways are incorrectly depicted in the charts for PUW airport due the closure of Taxiway A4 and construction activity.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Mission: Training
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management; Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The local FSDO visited my facility recently regarding the frequency of pilot deviations as they relate to the Leesburg Maneuvering Area (LMA); a special use area near the SFRA of Washington DC. Specifically; aircraft must use code XXXX while VFR and entering/exiting the LMA. An old procedure that was eliminated in 2014 was to use XXXY inbound and XXXX outboard. Since 2014; it has only been XXXX. It was brought to my attention that FSS is briefing pilots with the old rules. This occurred again today and the pilot indicated that he specifically asked in his briefing about the code and the specialist stated that the rules haven't changed and that XXXY is used inbound. This must be corrected immediately. Any time an aircraft enters the LMA on an incorrect code; it is deemed a pilot deviation. If we can eliminate the poor information being provided to pilots; this issue should resolve itself.

Callback: 7/5/2019Manager reported that another ATC division listened to a briefing from the FSS in question and did not hear inaccurate information. This ATC Manger recommends contacting the FSS to insure the correct information is indeed being disseminated.



Synopsis: Air Traffic Control Manger reported Flight Service Station is disseminating the wrong information regarding squawk codes used to enter / exit a practice area. Wrong codes could create a possible pilot deviation.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HND.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: DA40 Diamond Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E HND
ATC / advisory: CTAF HND
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Tower [was] closed. Our plan was to make six touch and goes on Runway 35L. A Remos small plane had started before the Tower closed and was using Runway 35L. He was talking when we synced our go around with his; then he landed and went to parking (but was still 'talking' on the radio). [There was] also; a helicopter four miles northeast [they were] 'talking' but was not going to land. There may have been a 4th voice; but it was low; quiet and nobody understood who he was or what he was doing.We were announcing 'downwind' left base for Runway 35L when another airplane appeared to takeoff on Runway 17R and quickly turned right under our DA-40 as we were turning final. We could see a red position light as he turned but no landing or white lights. He missed us by about 250 FT and obviously could see us as we had our strobes; landing and taxi lights on. There were green and red 'row' lights showing Runway 35L was preferred. ASOS report 240 degrees/3. He took off on Runway 17. Pretty scary.




Synopsis: A DA-40 private pilot just turning final to land on Runway 35L at HND suffered an NMAC with another unidentified aircraft taking off the opposite direction. The Tower was closed and CTAF communications were muddled.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was relieving the Radar Controller. Controller covered all required items including aircraft status. A B737 was on frequency with standard restriction to cross ZZZ at FL190. Briefing over; I sat down and observed the B737 crossing ZZZ level at FL230. At that moment; the B737 announced on frequency that they would not make the restriction at ZZZ; but that they would miss it by 3 or 4 miles. The Controller I relieved had not yet left the area; and confirmed that the B737 had checked on with the crossing restriction. The pilot of the B737 then made several transmissions asking if that had been a problem; are we all set here; are you going to file paperwork because if you are then we will; and so on. They missed the restriction by several more than just 3 or 4 miles.I read the recent briefing sheet that stated that crossing restrictions were the shared responsibility of pilots and controllers; and I disagree. A crossing restriction is issued by the controller to ensure that; at some future time or place; the altitude of a specific aircraft will be known; so that other tasks; such as concentrating on other separation scenarios developing in the sector; can be accomplished. Many pilots now 'hang it up' so they can perform 'flight idle descents' to an assigned crossing restriction; so it is not unusual for an aircraft to appear high; to a controller; for a particular restriction. Short of questioning each aircraft that has been issued a restriction if they are planning on complying with a restriction (and this does not assure compliance either); I do not see how a controller could manage a moderately busy sector; and thus; my opinion remains unchanged that an acknowledged crossing restriction; for which the controller has assured a good readback; is the sole responsibility of the flight crew. I have no recommendation on how to prevent a re-occurrence of this event. Until there are consequences for the offending flight crews; restrictions will continue to be ignored; and the results may prove to be ugly and newsworthy.




Synopsis: ARTCC Controller reported an air carrier missed a crossing restriction; then discussed who was responsible.
Date: 202008
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: When company announced the requirements for wearing a mask anytime we could not practice 6 feet of distance; I was happy and felt coming into work would be more safe. Problem is this policy has been in place and it seems like management is not enforcing employees to wear the mask. I haven't seen it myself but I've been told an entire shift doesn't wear mask except maybe two employees. I do feel like it's hard coming into work because I don't feel safe with co-workers who aren't following the new policy and management who allows it to happen.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported concerns about peers not wearing face masks.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ASE.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger 300
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ASE
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After being cleared for the LOC DME E approach into ASE; we were notified that Aspen Radar was inoperative. We continued to fly the approach to DOYPE where it was briefed we would execute the published missed procedure at that point. At DOYPE we executed the published missed approach: climbed to 14;000 feet and began our turn to an initial heading 300 at CEYAG. While turning towards LINDZ; ATC asked if we were direct LINDZ. We answered 'yes' per the published missed approach. ATC stated that they had received a 'low altitude alert' and instructed a climb to 17;000. We continued with the missed procedure routing and requested a return to ZZZ. ATC gave us vectors to a visual descent and landing at ZZZ. Before the handoff to Denver Center; we were notified to contact Aspen Tower once we landed. After contacting Aspen Tower; we were notified again of the low altitude alert. I notified the tower controller that our aircraft terrain warning system seemed fully operational and [we] executed the missed approach procedure without event.


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


Synopsis: A CL-30 flight crew reported being advised by ATC of a low altitude alert during their approach to ASE airport.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SNA.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C SNA
ATC / advisory: Tower SNA
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was returning from a recreational flight from the south of John Wayne Airport; SoCal on frequency 124.1 advised me to proceed direct to Signal Peak for the normal VFR pattern entry to John Wayne Airport.  I was handed off to the John Wayne Tower on frequency 119.9 and told to make left traffic for Runway 20L.   While downwind; I was cleared to land on Runway 20L and cautioned for wake turbulence from a 737 that was making a go around on Runway 20R.    As I proceeded downwind at around 100-110 kts with 50% flaps; I began a normal pattern descent and began my base turn.  I was just starting my base to final turn; between 90 to 100 knots and around 700 feet MSL (I was above 500 feet because my terrain warning of 500 feet had not yet sounded); when I saw a Cessna (believe it was a Cessna 172) coming straight toward me from the pilot's side window.  The Cessna was flying a pattern inside of me.  It appeared to be flying a downwind pattern; and was on a collision course with my base turning Cirrus. I steepened my angle of descent; and dove away from the Cessna.  It passed immediately behind my tail.  I did not have any time to observe the Cessna after I initially saw it and took evasive action.  I estimate it passed close behind my tail at my same altitude.I continued my descent and transitioned from base to final and landed without event on Runway 20L.  While on short final; I reported this near miss to the tower controller.  The controller confirmed I was number one and cleared to land; and that the Cessna was to follow me.




Synopsis: An SR22 pilot reported an NMAC in the pattern at SNA.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Tower, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On the RNAV Stadium Visual to runway 29 we were vectored behind an Airbus 321 on the ILS to 22R.  We joined the visual at GIMEE with the airport and the [A321] in sight.  We had been cleared to land prior to crossing GIMEE.  Tower reported winds calm; ATIS had winds 200/6.  Prior to SLIMR we were configured and slowing to approach speed.  At approximately 1;500 ft AGL I called for the landing check and called to the FO that [the A321] appeared to be crossing the numbers and spacing looked good.  Continued in LVAV/VNAV till the autopilot rolled us out on final at about 1;000 ft AGL.  At this point PAPI showed slightly high and corrected to visual glide path.  A rapid right roll was encountered just prior to touchdown causing contact of the right main. This slowed the roll but aircraft was still rolling right.  Immediate left aileron was applied along with deployment of the auto speed brakes quickly caused the left main to touch down.  Roll out was normal from this point.  Wing drop was so rapid that I thought the right gear leg had collapsed.  The event occurred so quickly that there was not even time to consider a go-around.  The application of power and lifting off again would likely only have exacerbated this situation placing us at a bank angle at low speed with an at the time unknown problem.  During debrief we determined that the event occurred just prior to the intersection with Runway 22R and was likely a wake turbulence event.  An ACARS generated report showed a max bank angle of 6.9 degrees with a predicted wing tip strike at a bank angle of 7.5 degrees.  The FO inspected the aircraft for possible damage; none was found.  The event was reported to Tower; but they did not seem concerned.  I contacted Clearance Delivery to get more information on the preceding aircraft.  CD took more interest and sounded like it would be reported.

Callback: Reporter stated intersecting runway wake encounter events were more unusual in his experience; but this one was quite severe.



Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported encountering wake turbulence shortly before touchdown on Runway 29 at EWR from an A321 on short final to Runway 22R.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZDC.ARTCC, VA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Other ALL
Operating under: Other ALL
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Other ALL
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Enroute
Human factors: Workload; Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals; Weather
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was training a trainee. Traffic was steady moderate for the first 30 minutes and then the sector became overloaded. I took over as the D-side (Assist) and Management called in an L-side (Extra Monitor) as well. There was weather west of our airspace moving eastward and we had deviations all over with adjacent sector routes now being forced through our sector. We consistently had a page of aircraft on the EDST (Enroute Decision Support Tool) with 54 in the ACL (Aircraft List) at its peak. At one point we had 2 other CPC's watching the scope and helping. This whole scenario was beyond safe. The sector was out of control and should have never been put in this situation to begin with. Unacceptable! TMU (Traffic Management Unit) and Management need to be more proactive. Instead of reacting; let's start slowing things down sooner and if it's not needed; we can reevaluate. Waiting until something like this happens is unacceptable.




Synopsis: ZDC Center Controller reported working an overloaded sector with weather deviations due to lack of traffic flow restrictions was unsafe.