elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201509
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDX.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E P80
ATC / advisory: TRACON P80
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Vehicle Driver
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As we were descending via the HHOOD3 arrival into PDX we were given clearance to OMMSI and a cleared alt of 6200 feet. Then after calling the airport in sight; we were cleared direct to TOLOC (OM on the ILS 28R) and told to cross TOLOC at or above 2000 feet. I was hand flying as we approached TOLOC at about a 45 deg intercept to final. There was a peak about 15 SE of PDX which I could see we were clear of; but as we passed over the top of it we got the GPWS terrain alert. I stopped the shallow descent we were in and the alert went away. Looking back at our position I should have been about 1000 feet higher crossing that peak to be on a 3 degree glide path. We continued to a normal landing. I should have looked more closely at the charted terrain on the approach chart and stayed higher longer; but once we got the clearance to cross TOLOC at or above 2000 feet; I continued a shallow descent. It could have been prevented if I had done a quick 3/1 descent calculation while we were still at about 6000 feet.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported receiving a GPWS 'Terrain' warning on a visual approach into PDX airport.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZFW
Second aircraft: Bombardier Learjet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying the DUMPY Arrival to DAL; we were given a clearance to cross CQY at 10;000 feet; and ORVIL at 9;000 feet. Passing through approximately 13;000 feet; Center gave us traffic at 12 o'clock; a Lear jet climbing VFR. Almost immediately we got a climb RA. This was the most aggressive RA I have ever seen; calling for 2;500 to 3;000 FPM. I disengaged the autopilot and followed the RA. It momentarily went to monitor Vertical Speed; [and] then went back to the aggressive climb RA; which we followed. We climbed back to nearly 13;000 feet complying with the RA. ATC was talking to the Lear. I feel he should have amended our descent instructions.


Second narrative: We were cleared to cross CQY at 10;000 feet. Approaching CQY; at approximately 11;000 feet we got a significant RA commanding 2-3;000 FPM climb. We complied and the RA lowered to approximately 1;500 FPM. We complied; at which time the RA increased to 2-3;000 FPM again. We complied. When clear of conflict; we told ATC who informed us that there was a VFR Lear jet at 10;400 feet. I said maybe having us cross CQY at 10;000 feet with that traffic there wasn't the safest thing. He said he hadn't 'been able to get back' to the Lear jet who was climbing VFR. I think he just didn't notice the impending conflict. He should have stopped the Lear if the Lear was talking to him; or at least stopped our descent. Heck; he never even called out the traffic to us. It was the most severe RA I've ever seen commanded.


Synopsis: Air carrier arrival into DAL experienced a significant TCAS RA event with a VFR climbing Lear jet; the reporter questioning ATC handling.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ROA.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ROA
ATC / advisory: TRACON ROA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Being vectored to a visual approach Runway 22 into ROA; we had a terrain caution followed by a pull up and responded accordingly.GPWS announced the warning.While remaining at the assigned 4;000 feet from ROA approach; we were on a left base for Runway 22 when we received the terrain warning and associated pull up.I instantly disconnected autopilot and climbed the aircraft 200 feet. Although I was mainly focused on the instruments during that time; I'm confident that the warning was dismissed almost instantly once passed the highest point on the ridge being crossed.My only suggestion would be crews deliberately discuss crossing ridges at the lowest point possible at assigned ATC altitudes or opening up conversation with Roanoke approach to see if we can get higher altitudes and longer vectors. I did read the previous write about the crew going into Roanoke and having the same issue and this event was discussed in the cockpit well before it happened so both the captain and myself were ready to respond to the caution.


Second narrative: Cleared visual approach Runway 24 in ROA; on left base outside HIBAN on GPS 24 approach; descending to 3;700 feet; GPWS sounded terrain; pull up. Terrain was selected on MFD and not depicting terrain. Briefed waiting to descend to 3;700 for HIBAN until after crossing ridge just too south of course; initiated descent passing ridge; but GPWS still sounded. Most likely caused by the RA sensing a rapid increase in terrain passing ridge as I initiated the descent. Turbulence may have contributed by causing a momentary descent rate greater than selected.I was able to visually verify we were clear of terrain and initiated an immediate climb. The alert silenced after climbing approximately 100 feet. For this approach in particular; there is no need to leave 4;000 (last ATC assigned altitude) until basically over HIBAN in VMC conditions. There is still plenty of time to lose excess altitude to follow the FPA. I should have just stayed at 4;000 until turned onto the approach more considering I had given myself the distance from HIBAN to make a shallow descent and still configure with plenty of time to have a stable approach.


Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reported being vectored in area of high terrain which caused GPWS to issue warning.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Other Fatigue
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Other During the course of an all night turnaround flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I am a reserve Flight Attendant and went back on call this morning. I did however sleep in that morning for a half hour. An all night turn opened up mid afternoon. I monitored it for several hours to see if I would be given this sequence so I could prepare myself and perhaps take a nap before its sign in and 10 hour duty 'night'. The trip remained open most of the afternoon. Crew Scheduling waited until the very last minute to assign me this trip; calling me 2 hours prior to sign in. By the time I returned to my domicile I had been awake for over 21 hours. If any type of emergency situation had presented itself I would have been too fatigued to address it or act upon it.I understand that I am 'contractually' obligated to fly a 12 hour duty day 'on paper.' However; I find fault in the company's policy that flight attendants are on call [24 hours a day] for a block of days at a time but mostly fault the Scheduling Department for allowing this trip to remain open all day. When they wait to the last minute to assign such a trip; human beings are unable to prepare themselves for all night duty.




Synopsis: A Flight Attendant addressed the need for schedulers to consider rest and fatigue concerns when assigning trips to on call reserves; stressing that all night assignments should be assigned at the earliest practical time to permit attendants to realign their day's activities to minimize fatigue during non-optimal diurnal operations.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On the RNAV Arrival into Chicago; we encountered severe turbulence in the descent. We were in the descent at approximately 14000ft over PAITN when we started to feel turbulence. The aircraft violently rolled into a 40 degree right bank which caused the autopilot to disengage. The Captain took controls and leveled the wings. As he got the LNAV set back on the turbulence started again and the aircraft violently rolled into a 40 degree left bank. The Captain continued to hand fly the plane while I contacted ATC. I informed them of the severe turbulence and queried if we were following a heavy aircraft since we saw nothing visually or on TCAS. ATC allowed us to offset to the right; so I set up the autopilot in HDG mode and 30 degree right turn off course. ATC responded that we were following a 737 which was 2000ft below us approximately 12 miles ahead. After flying on the heading for about 2 minutes; I asked ATC for instructions to rejoin the arrival. We never saw any aircraft pass overhead nor were told about any traffic passing overhead. Once the plane was under control; the Captain rang the Fight Attendant (FA) to check on her and passengers. No injuries were reported. ATC queried about injuries and/or aircraft damage to which I replied there were none; but the aircraft would be inspected on the ground. We landed without incident. The Captain wrote up the severe turbulence encounter and had maintenance inspect the aircraft. No deformations were found on my walk around. Maintenance found the Captain side piano hinge rod broken through the safety wire. It was unclear if it was caused by the turbulence. Maintenance re secured the piano hinge. The Captain took himself off the trip to get his wrist looked at since he twisted it during the turbulence encounter.




Synopsis: Embraer First Officer reported encountering severe turbulence while on descent into ORD.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLC.ARTCC, UT
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZLC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: A [Specified Rocket Club] often uses airspace for their rockets. This airspace is sometimes depicted with both a Lat/Long and a Fixed Radial Distance. A problem has occurred every time they include both means of identifying a single point where the center points are; the two points are off; usually from 2 to 7 miles. The rocket launch area is a five mile radius around (both) [specified places]. These points are five miles apart on our scopes. Uncounted amounts of aircraft were vectored into one of the protected airspaces in order to miss the other. I don't know the call signs or types of any of the aircraft that passed through the areas.Only one means of identifying a protected airspace should be used; unless they both depict the same point in space.




Synopsis: A ZLC Controller reports of a protected airspace that has two centers and the Controller does not know which is the correct one. Aircraft are flying through one of the areas because they do not know where the exact point is.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the 3I position; parallel monitor for Runway 28 during triple simultaneous approaches to ORD (West Flow.) C90 was providing 6 miles between arrivals to Runway 28; and ORD ATC Tower was departing Runway 28 between each arrival. An A319 was approaching WAVIE on the 28 localizer at 5;000 feet. An E145 was directly next to the A319 on the Runway 27L localizer about to leave 6;000 feet. The A319 had not checked in on the local/monitor frequency. I called to the 1W1 position (West Arrival) to try the A319 again; but he was not there. While this was occurring; Local had put an aircraft in position on Runway 28; and another aircraft was inside of the final approach fix. I did not feel it was safe to override the Local Control position at this time; on an IFR/MVFR day; to verify that the A319; who appeared to be flying the localizer normally; was monitoring the frequency. After Local had cleared the departure for takeoff; and I observed the airborne target; I used the Local frequency and verified that the A319 was on frequency; they were. The E145 had descended below 6;000 feet before I was able to verify the A319 was on the frequency. I posted a systemic safety issue several months ago based on this scenario. I will reiterate that I believe ORD should either not depart Runway 28 while conducting simultaneous ILS approaches to that runway; or there should be a separate monitor frequency for arrivals that can be used by the parallel monitor without overriding the Local Controller during critical moments; i.e. an aircraft holding in position with another aircraft inside the final approach fix.




Synopsis: C90 Controller expressed concern regarding the use of Runway 28 when simultaneous arrival operations are being conducted.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MU-2 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Engineer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL180; the temperature in the cabin became very cold suddenly. I increased the selected temperature with the auto temperature control rheostat; and the temperature did not change after several minutes. I then selected manual hot for about three seconds. The temperature coming out of my side duct began to warm. I left the temperature controller in auto after having moved the mix valve to a warmer selection in manual; and monitored the temperature. Several minutes later; the temperature coming out of the duct suddenly rose dramatically; and I could smell a burning smell. I immediately went to manual cold and tried to decrease the temperature; but concurrently the passengers in the back alerted me to smoke in the cabin. I called the Center controller and told him I needed lower immediately; and he cleared me to 11;000 feet. The temperature continued to come out hot; so I took the bleed air switches to off; and the cabin began to rapidly climb as I was in a rapid descent from FL180 to 11;000 feet. Once the bleed valves were turned off; there was no more smoke; and no more heat coming from the air ducts. At 11;000 feet; I turned the bleed valves back on one at a time; and cold air came out of the ducts. I was able to control the cabin in this configuration; and we flew the rest of the way with cold air coming from the air ducts. After landing; I passed the information on to our mechanics; and they are investigating the auto temperature control box for the ACM (Air Cycle Machine) as the culprit. Center asked if we were declaring an emergency; and we told them we had it under control with the descent to 11;000 feet. They asked if we needed any further assistance; and we told them we did not.




Synopsis: MU-2 Captain experiences very cold conditioned air at FL180. Initial attempts to warm the air are unsuccessful until manual is selected; then the air becomes too hot producing smoke. Attempts to cool the air using manual control are unsuccessful initially; so the bleeds are turned off and the aircraft is descended to 11;000 feet. Flight continues to destination at 11;000 feet.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure out of ZZZ; the Tail Comp Temp High light illuminated. Declared an emergency; completed QRH; and we returned to ZZZ. Due to previous aircraft changes; delays; return to gate for maintenance issues; and now the emergency return; we declined to continue on to ZZZ1.




Synopsis: An MD80 flight crew returned to their departure airport after receipt of a Tail Comp Temp High warnings.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
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: Takeoff / Launch; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Tower ATL
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On takeoff from 26L behind an Airbus A319; at about 50-100 FT and V2+15; we encountered a wake turbulence event.  We were cleared to takeoff as the previous aircraft was just about rotating. The takeoff was normal; with normal pitch rate and speed. The aircraft buffeted; rolled left and right about 10 to 15 degrees; and stick shaker activated for about 1 second.  The CA was PF and countered the rolling motion with the flight controls; lowered the nose and increased thrust to decrease the AOA.  The event lasted only a few seconds and we returned to the normal takeoff profile.Undesired aircraft state was the stick shaker at an altitude of about 50-100 FT; a rolling motion; and buffet.   This is the third time I have experienced this same exact event behind an A319/320.  I do not recall if I filed an ASAP or not.  In all three cases; the sequence and type of events were identical.  It seems that the A319/320 creates an unusual and/or significant wake turbulence.  I believe the FAA needs to review the wake created by the A319/320.  I also believe that the FAA should review the separation criteria for aircraft departing behind it.  I view this as a significant safety issue and it should be reviewed by both the company and the FAA.




Synopsis: CRJ200 FO reported encountering wake turbulence in trail of an A319 after takeoff from ATL.