elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SFO
Second aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I issued taxi instructions Air Carrier XXXX to Runway 1L via A/F1/B. The instructions were read back to me. I later told Air Carrier XXXX to monitor the other Ground frequency and received acknowledgement. At no time did Air Carrier XXXX tell me that I was calling them the wrong call sign and that their actual call sign is Air Carrier YXYX. To my knowledge; the controller working the frequency did not get corrected by the pilots of Air Carrier YXYX; either; nor did the Local Controller when 'Air Carrier XXXX' was told to line up and wait. Air Carrier XXXX's flight plan was removed from the system while they were believed to be holding on the runway and the announcement was made to them that a new flight plan was being worked on and that they were to hold in position. Once again; no correction was made by the pilots about the wrong call sign. Air Carrier XXXX was a Porte3 departure; hence why I originally issued them taxi instructions to Runway 1L. Air Carrier YXYX was a SFO8 departure. It was not known that Air Carrier XXXX was actually Air Carrier YXYX until the aircraft was observed turning right instead of left and Local Control questioned the pilot. Behind them on departure also was a B737; airborne; on a SFO8 off of 1R. I recommend a procedure change on Air Carrier XXXX's part with their similar sounding call signs. Those call signs are too close and almost caused a catastrophe.




Synopsis: SFO Controller described a confused flight plan event where an aircraft's call sign was mixed up during the taxi out to the departure runway. The reporter listed company similar sounding call signs as contributing to the incident.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TYS.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cirrus Vision SJ50
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C TYS
ATC / advisory: Tower TYS
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: My student got very low on an approach. I was hoping he would realize his mistake without my intervention. I forgot that we had picked up an IFR to get through a patch of rain. We were VMC at the time and obstacle clearance was assured. We received a low altitude alert from ATC and at that point; we called off the approach and officially changed it to a Visual Approach and landed.




Synopsis: An instructor pilot reported observing the student descend too low on the approach when ATC issued a low altitude alert.
Date: 201511
Location: MAF.Airport, TX
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower MAF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft was programmed for a flaps 1 takeoff on Runway 16R. Before Taxi Checklist was done and we were cleared to taxi to Runway 16R to hold short at Taxiway Mike for landing traffic. While holding short of 16R at Taxiway Mike; we ran the numbers for an intersection takeoff from Taxiway Mike. The First Officer populated the CDU for a flaps 5 takeoff and new V-Speeds. At that time we were interrupted by ATC as we were cleared to back taxi the runway. We requested to takeoff from Taxiway Mike.We did the Departure Plan Checklist. I verbalized and visually checked the new flap 5 setting in the CDU and also verbalized the flap indicator setting but did not visually check the flap setting and flap handle position was at the new flaps 5 setting. I didn't take possession of the [computer] from the First Officer as per standard procedure when reviewing the departure plan which probably would have trapped the error. The Captain must always have possession of the [computer] when reviewing any change in takeoff performance. We were both aware of the change in flap setting but for some reason assumed the flaps were repositioned. Every change must be visually checked and verified.


Second narrative: We were given intrusions to taxi to Runway 16R and hold short on Taxiway M. On the way out; I ran the numbers in the [computer] to see if we could do an intersection M takeoff. Numbers were good. At the intersection; I began to populate the CDU with the numbers from the [computer]. In the middle of doing so; we were instructed to back taxi on 16. I asked the Captain if he wanted full length or stay with intersection. He said an intersection departure would be fine. I told ATC of our intentions. During the distraction with talking to ATC and the Captain; I inadvertently did not set the flaps from position 1 to 5. We stopped; holding short of Runway 16 at intersection M; and ran the checklist. However; I held both the [computer] in one hand and the checklist in other and did not see that flaps were in an incorrect position. After takeoff; the Captain called to set speed/flaps 1. I said flaps were at 1. We retracted the remaining flaps on schedule. The rest of the flight was uneventful.


Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported taking off with the wrong flap setting because of distractions.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: AC Generator/Alternator
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: MEL; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise at FL370; [we] received an aural caution; 'HYD 3 LO PRESS' and 'IB GND SPLRS' EICAS cautions. Followed SOPs and QRH Procedures. During the QRH; [we] received EICAS status messages regarding DC (Direct Current) electrical system failures. The aircraft APU was MEL inoperative prior to departure. Company SOPs require two operative generators at all times. Flight crew determined the right engine generator was tripped off; and therefore we [informed ATC of our predicament]; we were left with just the left engine generator operating. Landed at [our destination] without issue until just short of parking at the gate; at which point we lost all electrical power. In result; we shut both engines down and had ramp [crew] tug us into the gate.


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


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported that the APU was inoperative and one of the engine generators tripped off while in cruise.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While at cruise altitude I was using the calculator on my phone to determine fuel burn to the next waypoint. I was the non-flying pilot and ATC gave us a change of frequency. I placed the phone on my right leg and reached forward to change the frequency. The phone fell from my leg and onto the floor. I heard the phone hit the floor. I left it there and changed frequencies and checked in with ATC. I went to pick up my phone and while I was doing this the aircraft alerted us to the cabin pressure altitude climbing. I noticed we were depressurizing and so we performed our memory items and requested priority handling and initiated a descent. At this point the passenger oxygen masks were activated. As we were descending I realized the dump button was pressed and surmised that when the phone fell it must have hit the guarded dump switch; bent the guard causing the dump button to engage and begin depressurizing the cabin. When we leveled at 10;000 feet we continued the checklist. We were right over ZZZ airport so this is where we diverted to. Because we were overweight and the First Officer was new I took control of the aircraft and made a smooth landing with approximately 300 ft/min descent rate. We landed without further incident. Passengers reported they were fine and did not want medical attention.In retrospect I would put any equipment that I have in my hands down in the proper place prior to doing anything else in the cockpit.


Second narrative: While flying at FL250 we experienced a rapid depressurization. We accomplished our memory items and the captain requested priority handling and commenced a descent. We diverted to ZZZ; no passengers requested medical attention.The Captain had been using the calculator on his phone to calculate fuel between points. While making a fuel calculation; we received a radio call from ATC and the Captain put his phone on his leg. When he leaned forward; the phone slipped off his leg denting the Dump button guard and pressed the dump button.


Synopsis: EMB-145 flight crew reported Captains cell phone fell from his leg and hit the pressure dump switch; causing cabin depressurization.
Date: 201708
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PSP.Tower, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower PSP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was on Local Control. Aircraft X inbound wanted to park at an FBO. I gave instructions to make left traffic to the Runway 31L. I had a maintenance vehicle and company on the runway at the time. I decided to change Aircraft X to Runway 31R instead. I told Aircraft X to expect Runway 31R. Pilot read back Runway 31R. I saw the aircraft turning toward the airport at 140 knots. I had an expectation bias that the pilot would do what he said. I got complacent with summer traffic and was talking to other controllers in the Tower Cab. I missed the aircraft landing on the wrong runway and opposite direction. The maintenance vehicle asked if I saw the aircraft that flew over them. And that's when I saw the aircraft rolling out on the runway.Aircraft landed on wrong runway without a landing clearance with vehicles on the runway. Reduce side conversations and increase my awareness through scanning more actively.




Synopsis: PSP Tower Controller reported not noticing an aircraft land on the wrong runway which had a vehicle on it until the vehicle operator queried the Controller about the aircraft.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: JFK.Tower, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X; E190; was lead aircraft followed by Aircraft Y; B752; trailing aircraft. At transfer of control point both aircraft were doing same assigned speed from N90. As Aircraft X approached FAF he began slowing to land and Aircraft Y continued at assigned speed to FAF. The compression on final began and I asked Aircraft Y to slow to final approach speed (and he responded); as this was happening the other Local (LC2) working the departure runway (inboard runway) 04L; gave me multiple runway crossings of 04L @ FB; F 2X; and G. Due to the IFR weather conditions and low visibility we were in and out of being allowed to have 2.5 miles on final (as opposed to 3) dependent on if we could see the runway exits. At the time of Aircraft X landing; I could see the runway (RWY) exits so 2.5 miles was acceptable; however as I was completing the coordination to cross 04 L with multiple aircraft; Aircraft Y got to within 2.25 miles of Aircraft X (as he touched down). Aircraft X exited at the midfield F; and Aircraft Y landed without issue behind him. The transfer of control for arrivals on 04R is 8NM; however in many cases we do not get them until just at 8 miles or inside; this doesn't normally allow for enough time on IFR weather days to slow aircraft to account for compression on final within the FAF. N90 routinely assigns speed to the FAF and runs a tight final so unless we are given control at 8 miles (with at least a chance to slow someone) there is no way to accomplish the task. To complicate things further we have to coordinate/accomplish runway crossings at the same time with another controller which takes up a lot of time on frequency during which most separation is lost. There is probably not much we could change to avoid this except allow for proper transfer of control or have N90 stop assigning the same speed to all aircraft because when they slow inside FAF compression is then inevitable. If the lead aircraft is going 180 to FAF; then the trailing should be 170 to build the space they will lose; in IFR conditions and considering aircraft type; characteristics; and wake turbulence.




Synopsis: JFK local controller reported loss of separation on final approach during IFR conditions while coordinating runway crossings; noting compression of aircraft spacing on final and approach control speed control prior to handoff as contributors.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHX.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower PHX
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: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Significant wake turbulence associated with takeoff behind A321. Departing Runway 25R at PHX; [we were] lined up and cleared for takeoff behind a departing A321 as it rotated downfield.  Our takeoff sequence started normally with flex numbers and a standard rotation at Vr.  Between 100-200 feet AGL; we experienced an abrupt roll to the left of approximately 20-30 degrees.  Aircraft control was immediately regained as we cleared the wake of the preceding aircraft.  This is the second encounter I've had departing behind a presumably 'heavy' A321 and encountering such significant wake turbulence; however this is the first time it has occurred so low the ground.  Tower cleared our takeoff just as the [preceding] aircraft wheels left the pavement in which we then began our takeoff roll. It may be considered advisable to further follow similar events with regional aircraft taking off behind A321.  An immediate departure behind this aircraft type should possibly be delayed to avoid wake turbulence at low altitudes.

Callback: Reporter stated this was a very unsettling event given the low altitude at which it occurred.



Synopsis: CRJ-700 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence shortly after takeoff from PHX in trail of an A321.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Trailing Edge Flap
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; I called for flaps 2 and we then received an ECAM message FLAPS LOCKED - DUE TO ALIGNMENT. The flaps stayed at almost 2 and the leading edge devices operated normally. We discontinued the approach; declared an emergency; and asked for vectors to deal with the ECAM. We ran the ECAM (which had no actions); performed the status page items and then followed up with the QRH. This all took less than five minutes and we were vectored back around for a normal landing. The landing was uneventful and we taxied to the gate. Everything was normal except the flaps stayed at the position they failed (locked) at when we selected flaps 0 after landing.




Synopsis: During approach; an A320 ECAM alerted FLAPS LOCKED - DUE TO ALIGNMENT; so an emergency was declared; the QRH procedure completed; and a normal landing ensused.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was on a Visual Approach to the right runway. Aircraft Y was on the Visual Approach to the left runway. About a mile out Aircraft Y made a hard right turn; in what appeared to be an attempt to land on the right runway. From the tower they appeared almost directly above Aircraft X. They were descending to land on top of Aircraft X. At the last second they realized their mistake and made a left turn to head back to the left runway. They missed by maybe an airplane length. The weather was deteriorating rapidly; with wind-shear alerts; and heavy rain moving in. We as controllers make a request several times to stop the left parallel runway arrivals due to the weather moving in. After the near miss; they stopped the left runway arrivals.Both airplanes are on separate frequencies heading towards each other to land side by side. It does not seem like the safest operation.


Second narrative: Making a Visual Approach overshot runway centerline. We got closer to runway centerline of parallel right runway than I would have liked. Aircraft landing on the right runway was in sight and no collision or evasive maneuvers were required or used. No RA was issued. Aircraft on the right runway was lower than we were. Tower never said anything and we landed uneventfully.Rain shower had just moved over approach area.


Synopsis: An aircraft on a Visual Approach overshot the final approach course and conflicted with an aircraft on approach to the parallel runway at PHL. The Tower Controller reported a NMAC. The flight crew of the deviating aircraft had the parallel traffic in sight.