elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: A321
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We executed a go around while on a visual approach to runway 18C at CLT after encountering a wake turbulence event at approx. 150 - 200 AGL just before landing. It was obvious to the crew that we had a wake turbulence encounter with the A321. While on a visual approach to 18C at CLT we were in trail of an Airbus A321 approx. 4 miles in front of us; the separation was normal for CLT. It was noted that the winds at around 300 feet were from the NW at 15 to 20 KTS. All aspects of the approach were normal and stable until approximately 200 feet AGL when the aircraft started an abrupt un-commanded roll to the left. The autopilot was off and I was hand flying. I reacted to the un-commanded roll; rolling wings level and executing a go around due to the interruption of a stabilized approach and the close proximity to the ground. ATC was notified; we were subsequently vectored around for a second visual approach that concluded with a normal approach and landing. All information provided to the crew which included; ATC instruction; TCAS information; as well as visual separation indicated sufficient separation existed between the two aircraft to avoid any wake turbulence conflict. I believe the weather conditions played a major role in the A321's wake vortices remaining in the approach area for an extended amount of time caused by the wind direction aloft. I have no suggestions in how to avoid this event from occurring again because the separation provided by ATC and wind conditions for the landing runway are all normal procedures for many ATC facilities.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer (FO) reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence at 150-200 feet AGL from preceding A321 on approach.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autoflight System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During initial climb in VNAV; shortly after right autopilot engagement by the flying pilot and during the flaps transition from 5; 1 to up; the autopilot commanded the aircraft to descend. While the airspeed was increasing; as the monitoring pilot I took command of the aircraft by disengaging the autopilot and flying manually back to a climb. During the few seconds of recovery; the maximum flap speed may have been exceeded. The autopilot was later reengaged without a problem. A maintenance write up of the event was send via ACARS to the maintenance department.




Synopsis: Captain reported a malfunction of the autopilot during climb out which resulted in a flap over speed.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were cleared to descend via the ZZZZZ Arrival (I cannot remember if they said landing North or South). At the time the ATIS reported landing south. Runways XXC and XXR were in use for landing. We planned on landing XXC. We swapped over to Approach (not sure if FO checked in with our ATIS) and approach did not say a new ATIS was out or what direction of landing was being used. Time was about XA:00Z. A few minutes later we made the turn to the north going to ZZZZZ1. After another two or three minutes Approach informed us we were flying the wrong way; they were landing north now; and gave us a turn back to the southwest heading 210. We reset and briefed landing [Runway] YC. Everything else was fine. I was focusing on flying the arrival. FO was familiarizing himself with the airport; I think he said he has never been there before. Both of us went nearly four months without flying. We didn't check for a new ATIS at the top of the hour.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported making a wrong turn on an arrival; but corrected soon after Approach Control pointed out the error.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Nosewheel Steering
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Logbook Entry; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Captain of Aircraft X called reported of a NWS (Nosewheel Steering) INOP caution message after pushback. I walked the Captain through the reset procedures in the FIM. The reset procedure did not work. I had the Captain power the aircraft down; wait five minutes then power the aircraft back up and call me back when he did. The Captain never called back. When he landed; Captain wrote the discrepancy: 'STEERING INOP caution complied with MX procedure; issue resolved.'I think there was miscommunication of procedures and who is responsible to write up the discrepancy or when.I will advise the pilots to have a discrepancy entered before performing any type of reset procedure.




Synopsis: Maintenance controller reported that an aircraft flew without the required maintenance documentation.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-24
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flight was Part 135 flight with three passengers from ZZZ to ZZZ1. Flight was normal from start through cruise portion. Upon descending for our destination through 36;000 ft.; the 'L/R Bleed OFF/Fail' Caution Advisory System (CAS) illuminated. We moved the thrust levers from the idle position forward; thinking we were just not getting enough bleed air. However; after bringing them forward; the cabin altitude still continued to climb. At this point the cabin altitude went above 10;000 ft. and the associated CAS illuminated. The aircraft's Emergency Descent Mode also automatically engaged at the same time. The crew told ATC we had pressurization issues and needed to get down. Oxygen masks were then donned and communication was reestablished. We were initially given an altitude of 17;000 ft. When we leveled off; the cabin started to pressurize again. From this point on the cabin pressurization system worked normally. At no time did the cabin altitude exceed 12;000 ft.; nor did the passengers oxygen masks deploy. No emergency was declared and the flight continued uneventfully to the planned destination.




Synopsis: PC-24 Pilot Not Flying reported an equipment failure resulting in a loss of cabin pressure.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PHL.Tower, PA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light 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 Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was cleared for visual approach to Runway 35 from left base (west of the airport). I noticed that Aircraft Y was south of his standard departure heading off Runway 9L (normally a 127 heading). Aircraft Y was headed more like a 140 heading; which puts the aircraft very near the Runway 35 final. There was no loss of separation; but it was not a 'controlled' situation. The Departure Controller informed me that Aircraft Y was turned southeast to avoid the previous departure; a slower-moving aircraft that was on the same heading.This is yet another example of the ineffective allocation of our 'authorized' departure headings. We use 081 and 050 for northbound departures; and 112 and 127 for southbound. The 127 heading is used for both props and jets. We also have the ability to use a 096 heading; but I have been told that it is 'earmarked' for northbound departures when our north airspace is redesigned. It seems ridiculous that we don't have the ability to use the 096 heading for prop traffic; at least until our airspace is redesigned (which I don't think is currently in progress). It would keep them out of the way of jet traffic; give us much more space to climb the under-performing props above our arrivals; and would prevent a jet running over a prop. Again; we have an authorized departure heading that we choose not to use because of some bureaucratic direction that it is for 'northbound' traffic. LGA and EWR are both 'north' of PHL; but prop traffic to those airports use a 127 heading to get there. Meanwhile; traffic going to CLT; which is hundreds of miles 'southwest' of PHL; use a 'northbound' heading. Shouldn't safety and efficiency take priority over procedures for airspace we won't redesign for years to come?




Synopsis: PHL Controller describes issue with headings off PHL that cause the controllers confusion.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Pneumatic System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing through 10;000 MSL right after the PM (Pilot Monitoring) finished the 10;000 ft climb checklist the Master Warning Cabin Pressure alarm activated.  Once the alarm went off PM completed the Master Warning Pressure checklist then requested from ATC to descend back down to 10;000 MSL to run the Checklist.  Once going through the checklist PM and PF (Pilot Flying) realized that the ground crew at LAX when they towed the aircraft to and from the gate turned the pressurization switch to 'dump' and was not caught until the alarm went off alerting the crew.  Once finishing the checklist and the aircraft started to pressurize as normal both crew agreed to continue as normal and requested our normal cruising altitude; with no other irregularly items occurring for the rest of the flight.The reason complacency was the number one cause of the situation was due to the fact that every take off and climb the aircraft pressurizes like it should.  You get used to seeing the aircraft pressurizing and your brain could make it look like the needles are in the correct position even if they are not if you don't take a good enough look at them every time.  When the crew received the aircraft many items were in the incorrect position even for an aircraft that was just towed.  A statement was made that we (flight crew) should double check everything to make sure that the all the systems are set correctly; which was unfortunately not completed in the entirety leading to the Master Warning alarm.




Synopsis: The crew received a cabin pressure warning when climbing through 10;000 feet after departing LAX. After discovering that the pressurization switch was set incorrectly; they were able to proceed to their destination.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RSW.TRACON, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON RSW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X told EST radar they had an alternator problem but didn't want to declare an emergency. They wanted to turn off their avionics for a short time and then come back up on frequency.  When we tried to give ZMA LAL HI the handoff; they refused the handoff because they were too busy.  We attempted to convince the pilot to land at an airport to have the problem looked at. They wanted to continue on and left our radar coverage to the north.No ATC should ever be too busy to assist a pilot having some sort of trouble.  We should never be told unable in this case.  Of course; the best thing for the pilot to do would have been to land.  That being said; it is our job to keep an eye on the guy and ensure his problems do not multiply.  If they do; we are ready to help him out in any way we can.




Synopsis: RSW controller reports of an aircraft that is having alternator problems; but didn't want to declare an emergency. ATC tried to hand off the aircraft to ZMA but they didn't want the aircraft because they were too busy. Controller complains that ZMA should have taken the aircraft. Aircraft continued on its way.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Landed short of runway due to engine failure; problem unknown at this time. Should have made a shorter approach that would have been able to land on the runway.

Callback: Possible fuel issue; but reporter stated the exact source had not been determined.



Synopsis: Cessna 210 pilot reported engine failure and landing short of the runway.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CVO.Airport, IN
Light: Night
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Last instruction from ATC was 'cleared direct to destination'. We were getting close to the airport and as we were a little bit high the Captain decided to go to the 5 mile fix from Runway 35 (we were visual). I said to him that it was a deviation from our clearance and that I was going to ask the Controller if we were authorized to do that. The Captain said that we were OK and that we didn't have to ask them. That it was an uncontrolled airport. As I was trying to explain to the Captain that we should advise ATC; the Controller came on the radio and asked us if we were going direct to the airport. I replied that we were on base to Runway 35. The Controller got very upset and asked us not to do that again as we were on an IFR flight plan. I agreed and the Captain proceeded direct to the airport. My conclusion is that yes; we were high (we even had to overfly the airport to land) but we should have advised ATC of our intentions regardless if we were on an uncontrolled airport and it was VFR weather. I needed to be more assertive and take action and let ATC know of our intentions.




Synopsis: While on an IFR clearance 'direct to' their airport of intended landing the Captain of a BE40 elected to alter course to position himself for a visual approach without ATC approval. He was taken to task initially by his First Officer and shortly after by ATC.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Time Pressure
Second reporter function: Enroute; Trainee
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Equipment / Tooling; Human Factors
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: I was providing training on sector 37 when the event occurred. Aircraft X was at FL330 on course for PXR and Aircraft Y at FL340 was direct HEC. The two aircraft were in level flight when they crossed each other by the required 1000 ft separation between two RVSM qualified aircraft and crew. While they were within 5 miles lateral of each other Aircraft X reported that they had just lost their autopilot and were now NON-RVSM. My trainee then descended the Aircraft X out of the RVSM Airspace and updated the flight plan to reflect non-RVSM status. However; due to the aircraft proximity we had a loss of separation due to the loss of autopilot by the Aircraft X. No suggestions; there is nothing that can foresee an equipment malfunction to avoid such an event from happening again.


Second narrative: While training and working the R37 position Aircraft X; at FL330 informed me he had to leave RVSM airspace immediately. I asked the pilot for the reason first instead of immediately descending the aircraft and the pilot informed me he had lost the auto pilot function onboard the aircraft. Meanwhile Aircraft Y at FL340 was flying opposite direction to Aircraft X approaching the 5NM radius which we use for standard separation. Realizing the two aircraft now have potential to be an issue due to a new non-RVSM aircraft involved; I descended Aircraft X to FL270 informed management and continued to work the sector. I have no recommendations for this occurrence due to the uncontrollable outcome that took place.


Synopsis: ZLA Instructor and Developmental Controllers report a loss of separation due to an aircraft that had an autopilot failure. The aircraft advised ATC and the Developmental descended the aircraft out of RVSM airspace; but ended up less than the required 5 miles away from another aircraft.