elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
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 B IAH
ATC / advisory: Tower IAH
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were following a B777 to RWY 8R in IAH. There was a 30 knot quartering tailwind during the approach and our spacing with the heavy started getting closer and closer. Crossing MATON; the airplane started to sink below the glide slope and the GPWS was activated. We followed the go-around procedure and came around for a non-eventful visual approach and landing.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported sinking below the glideslope on approach to IAH in trail of a B777.
Date: 201212
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I preflighted the aircraft and did a run-up prior to takeoff.  Everything was normal in the preflight and run-up.  After applying power upon reaching the rotation speed I aborted [the] takeoff because the engine was not producing enough power and slid off the end of the runway.




Synopsis: PA24 pilot reported his engine was not producing normal power on takeoff roll; so he rejected and ran off the end of the runway.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: 95% of passengers had masked removed as I came through the cabin to do trash pick up and food and beverage service.  Passengers were talking and eating as I walked through cabin collecting their used trash and liquids.  Several spoke to me asking for items without their masks on.Company safety guidelines not a priority when it comes to Flight Attendant safety.  Impossible to enforce 6 foot distance and masks during food and beverage service even though numerous announcements regarding wearing mask while FA are in the aisle. Protect the front line employees during this COVID-19 pandemic.  Risking employee lives over a beverage/food service contradicts safety guidelines.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the majority of passengers were not complying with face mask policy.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Experienced a low speed groundloop upon rollout. Aircraft veered right. No damage was noted to the runway; lights; or median and we verified that no damage to the aircraft occurred. ATIS was calling winds at 350/7; tower reported winds variable at 6 kts. On short final we picked up the windsock which was indicating the wind to be close to the 350/7 reported on ATIS. We considered a go around; and ask for an approach to runway 35; and in hindsight should have. The touch down (wheel landing) and initial rollout was fine even as the tailwheel touched down. The wind must have had enough push to initiate the groundloop at what I'd estimate to be about 20 KIAS and at this point; with little to no rudder effectiveness and the tailwheel locked; we lost command of directional control. We used brakes to control the stop to their max performance. The three wheels maintained contact with the ground throughout the incident and the aircraft came to a relatively gentle stop in the grass. We then taxied clear of the median and to the ramp without incident.




Synopsis: A Kinner Sportster pilot reported a low speed ground loop when a light crosswind caused loss of directional control on landing roll.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for the ILS Runway 25R from straight in by the DYNR controller.  Aircraft Y was turned base off the downwind by the STAR controller descending to 2200 feet.  Aircraft Y was going to go Runway 24L.  Aircraft Y was not established on final but still on a heading to join the localizer inside of the parallel monitor capture box.  I noticed this; while working PM2 and asked the DYNR controller if he had Aircraft X on frequency; and he did not.  I then asked the PM1 controller if he had Aircraft X on frequency; and he did not.  Subsequently Aircraft X descended out of 3200 feet on the approach and by the time Aircraft X was on PM1 frequency; Aircraft Y was establishing on the localizer.  At this time; Aircraft X was out of 3000 feet descending; next to the Aircraft Y aircraft at 2200 feet.  If the Class Bravo was extended further east  at 2500 feet; the STAR controller would not be inclined to take chances like this.  Further; if there were step downs on both ILS's; like ORD; we could work around this.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reports of a loss of separation he watches happen; tries to make others aware but the aircraft are in a frequency change.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 K (231) / Encore
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During a practice approach RNAV XXL ZZZ on IFR flight plan we were cleared for the approach.  We had also been told to change frequency to the advisory frequency of ZZZ so now not in contact with Approach.  We observed traffic on our 5:30 300 feet below and closing fast.  We were supposed to be descending which would have made the closure rate greater. We attempted to reach out to the other aircraft via the CTAF with out any response and then decide to take evasive maneuvers and turned left away from  traffic.  We made a 360 to avoid the traffic all while in VMC and continued the practice approach and reported the miss to TRACON.  when we switched back to TRACON to report the missed the controller was not happy that we had turned and wanted to know why we said we had to take evasive action for a tragic issue and did so to avoid a collision. He said we did not report it quickly enough and the he could not trust us; yet he did not mention the tragic closing quickly on us before we were handed off in the first place.  We discovered the aircraft behind us and closing on our ADSB display and as soon as we turned away from the direction of travel we saw the aircraft.  If we had followed the approach path exactly we would have descended directly into his path but ahead of him.  We never observed the other aircraft slow down or turn away from the similar heading as us.




Synopsis: M20-K single pilot reported an NMAC event during approach with unreported traffic on a collision course.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower HPN
Second aircraft: Gulfstream Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: HPN airport; holding short of Runway 34; awaiting takeoff clearance; the crew observed the following. A Gulfstream was cleared to land runway 34. The Gulfstream was in the landing flare at approximately 40 feet when tower issued 'go around; go around' to the Gulfstream. We were watching it land when the command was issued. The Gulfstream pitched up and executed a go around as a small Cessna landing runway 29 passed directly under the Gulfstream on the landing rollout. I estimate 50 feet separation; at most. We observed this from about 150 yards away. This was about as close as it gets without an explosion. The Gulfstream returned for a landing and ask 'why the go-around'.  Tower replied; Cessna landed without landing clearance. Nothing else was said between Tower and the Gulfstream. I believe Tower/ATC/Approach made a near fatal error in not recognizing the proximity of the Cessna to the cleared to land Gulfstream. After the event; operations resumed normally with business jets/airliners landing 34 and small aircraft landing one after another Runway 29. I believe during these type of operations a high level of vigilance should exist between only highly experienced Tower/ATC Controllers. I have seen similar incidents happen at HPN. Tower controller seemingly [had] 'lack of experience' or [experienced] 'loss of situational awareness.'




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported observing a near-collision between a Gulfstream landing on HPN Runway 34 and a Cessna landing on Runway 29. Reporter was of the opinion it was an ATC error.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On the takeoff roll we experienced the notorious 'dirty sock' smell. The smell was quite strong. I elected to continue the takeoff as we were already above 80 knots. As we began our climbout the smell began to fade; and eventually seemed to go away outside an occasional whiff detected by myself or my First Officer. We were unable to put our oxygen masks on during the event as we were task saturated flying the airplane. I sent an ACARS to Dispatch to notify them of the smell and that we would need Maintenance in ZZZ1. Dispatch asked if the smell had been present in the cabin; and after speaking with my flight attendants I confirmed that they had not noticed anything. Upon arriving in ZZZ1 I wrote up the discrepancy as 'dirty sock smell in cockpit only'. ZZZ1 Maintenance deferred Pack 1 and the smell was not noticed on subsequent flights.As additional information based upon my review of the aircraft logbook; this has been a recurring issue with this aircraft; having been written up no less than 3 times in the last month. The Pack that was deferred is also associated with an engine that has had multiple write ups for high LP (Low Pressure) vibration and seems to have a high rate of oil consumption.




Synopsis: EMB-175 Captain reported experiencing dirty sock fumes smell during takeoff.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Orion (P3)
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed ZZZ and was instructed to fly heading 070. Aircraft X requested to go off frequency to acquire the ATIS information for ZZZ1. I instructed Aircraft X to squawk a new code and then approved his request to go off frequency and to advise when back on. Aircraft X was about 10 miles from a 4;000 FT MVA area and I felt he would be able to gather the information and return to frequency in time for me to turn him. While Aircraft X was off frequency; I was adjusting his data block and accidentally terminated control and removed him from the STARS. I re-entered the information but I did so incorrectly. I put his call sign as Aircraft Y. About a minute or two later Aircraft X was approaching the boundary for the 4;000 FT MVA. I reached out to see if he was back on frequency yet; but I called out for Aircraft Y because of my earlier mistake. Another Controller asked me if I was watching Aircraft Y and I replied that they were off frequency. I tried to reach aircraft on Guard; but again I called out Aircraft Y. Several minutes later Aircraft X called up and asked; 'Did you mean Aircraft X?' I realized my error and replied; 'Aircraft X climb and maintain 4;000 FT fly heading 340.' His present heading was towards an even higher MVA. I asked Aircraft X if he had acquired the ATIS. He said that he did not; so I just read the ATIS to him myself. Aircraft X reached 4;000 FT safely and then was vectored and landed safely at ZZZ1. I should have either put Aircraft X at a higher altitude or put him on a safer heading. I could also have just read the ATIS information to the pilot initially.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller approved a frequency change to an IFR aircraft to acquire the ATIS information which led to a below MVA event.
Date: 201701
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Challenger CL600
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Spoiler System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During our takeoff roll; the LH FLT SPLR light came on which also resulted in the takeoff configuration warning horn sounding. This occurred around the same time as the '80 knots' callout made by the PM. I called 'Abort; Abort; Abort'; rejected the takeoff; and noted that the max speed we attained was a little less than 90 knots. We exited the runway and returned to the FBO to evaluate what had happened and what our options were. After extensive consultation with my crew; maintenance; dispatch; and the chief pilot; we determined that we could not MEL the flight spoiler given its type of the failure and therefore I elected to terminate the flight.A takeaway I have from this event is how we conduct our pre-takeoff briefing. My standard brief is that we abort for anything below 80 knots and between 80 and V1 we only abort for an engine failure; fire; loss of directional control; or thrust reverser deployment. I am going to consider revising that statement/plan after this event. In this particular instance; the warning horn came on long after I had set takeoff thrust; and because I am conditioned to associate that sound with the aircraft being unsafe to takeoff; I think an abort is appropriate up to V1 (this is contrary to my current brief). I plan to change my briefing slightly to include this sort of occurrence as an abort-able condition between 80 and V1.




Synopsis: A Bombardier Challenger Captain reported a flight spoiler warning during takeoff roll at about 80 knots. He elected to abort the takeoff and return to the ramp for a Maintenance evaluation of the problem.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Time Pressure; Workload; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other all segments
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Incorrect understanding of new company normal procedures leading to non-compliance. Pilots trying to 'force' old procedure over the new procedure template. Compliance rate is near zero. No formal training on new procedures before introduction; insufficient explanation of differences between triggers; flows; procedures; and policy compliance. Revise or abandon new procedures in favor of a more logical regimen.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported no formal training on new procedures before introduction; insufficient explanation of differences between triggers; flows; procedures; and policy compliance.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower DFW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As flight was lining up with the Gate utilizing the DGS; a white; full-size; pickup truck approached from the aircraft right at a high rate of speed and accelerating. Crew was forced to slam on the brakes to avoid a collision. Flight Attendant reported that several passengers in window seats on the right side of the aircraft had been alarmed that we were about to get hit.After the threat was avoided; crew completed parking safely and reported the incident to Ramp Control. A ramp manager was requested. The manager was advised of the extremely unsafe driving. The Chief Pilot was also advised of the situation.




Synopsis: CRJ200 Captain reports a near collision with a high speed pickup truck while attempting to park at the gate using the DGS. A quick by the Captain avoids the collision.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While descending on the Milton arrival into LGA; leveling at 10;000 ft; we received an instruction to fly heading 100 from ATC due to traffic as we simultaneously received a TCAS RA. The RA instructed us to descend; this command was followed and ATC was notified. Following this command resulted in us being at approximately 9;300ft at 310 kts. After we were clear of conflict ATC advised us to maintain 9;000 ft and the aircraft was immediately slowed to 240 kts. Flight Crew was uncertain if this RA conflict resulted in another RA from an aircraft lower; or if it was just an advisory.Late instructions from ATC with regards to VFR traffic avoidance. TCAS RA required an immediate descent below 10;000 MSL without opportunity to slow the aircraft below 250 kts. Recommend better coordination between sector controllers and VFR aircraft operating in the Class B airspace.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported exceeding 250 knots below 10;000 FT in response to an RA on arrival into LGA.