elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Landing Without Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We failed to switch to Tower Controller and get a landing clearance. Lack of recent flying experience; my 2nd leg after 3 months off. Fatigue due to not getting much sleep in before red eye flight. Lack of recent flying by non flying pilot as well. Slam dunk approach by Controller; task saturated. I needed the gear and flaps out and was asking for them at the same time the Controller was switching us to Tower.I don't recall the Approach Controller asking us a second time to switch to Tower; the Tower said later when we called them that they tried us on guard (I did have it tuned and up a little bit; surprised I didn't hear it) and did light signals but didn't mention calling Approach Control and asking them to tell us to go to Tower again.  The other thing is tough; I know why the pilot flying doesn't do the flaps and gear himself; but in this case my asking for them right after the non flying pilot read back instructions to switch to Tower I think caused him forget to switch over and check in.  Lastly; it's pretty ingrained in me to call out 'landing' before touching down; but going forward I'm going to be less concerned about saying the word and concerned with the 3 things we need to land.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported landing without a clearance.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I told the CRJ-700 to cross SHIKY at and maintain FL280 as required via LOA with Chicago Center. After observing that the plane had initiated the descent and the RADAR handoff had been taken by the Badger Sector at Chicago; I shipped the CRJ-700 to the G60 Sector. I noticed a few minutes later that the plane had descended to FL240 in my airspace; this is not approved via the LOA. Chicago Center changes the LOA often. Maybe if it stayed the same for awhile it would help.


Second narrative: While working the FLM position; I heard the R13 Controller telling me to; 'Close your ears.' The Controller then goes on to tell a co-worker that ZAU had just descended a CRJ-700 without coordination or approval (via LOA or verbal). The co-worker told the Controller he/she should let the ZAU Controller know what happened. From what I overheard; the ZAU Controller was completely unaware. What's troubling about this event is the Controller's desire to have me 'close my ears.' For some reason; controllers still seem to want to hide and cover up events; even though it's my strong belief that the Controller intended to file a report. There seems to be a continuing 'no harm; no foul' attitude about safety events. For me; this again paints the pathological nature existing; and seemingly growing. Very sad and; as I've said before; quite possibly at some point will result in a severe safety event. Either change the LOA to allow descent on the SHIKY transition of the BULLZ STAR; or at minimum (re)educate the ZAU area about their lack of control for descent on this route. As far as the 'close your ears' aspect of this; it would seem ZMP needs some sort of reinforcement about the benefits of reporting items and having an open attitude towards safety problems and events. The repeated actions of trying to keep things hidden needs to stop somehow.


Synopsis: ZMP Controller described a LOA violation on the part of ZOA when descending an aircraft while still in ZMP's airspace.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: R90.TRACON, NE
Aircraft: EC135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E OMA
ATC / advisory: CTAF OMA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X called departing Helipad North of the hospital in MVFR conditions. The pilot advised me that he was on an IFR clearance that was issued by Omaha Clearance Delivery. No coordination occurred from Omaha Tower to me. The helicopter was inside the 3500' MVA ring when I saw a splat for his target but no data tag. I asked the Controller in Charge (CIC) and the R90 Flight Data if they knew anything about this or had done any coordination and what I was expected to do with the helicopter. The controller I had relieved had just pushed a strip over for the aircraft after the recorded briefing was over and mentioned that the helicopter strip was already printed and laying at the Radar West position and that the helicopter was at [an adjacent airport] airport and Local would 'flash' the tag when the helicopter departed [the adjacent airport].  The strip showed the aircraft filed for 4000' MSL.  There was no departure tag in my departure list; so I RF'd the squawk code and then the tag showed up on the helicopter as he tracked South away from the antennas. I had the helicopter ident. I radar identified the helicopter and told him to climb and maintain 4000' and sent him on his way to [the destination]; issuing current altimeter and verifying his altitude. I continued working my other traffic and handed the helicopter off to center and transferred communications to ZMP sec. 26. I had no further communications with the helicopter. It is apparent that Clearance Delivery (CD) at OMA issued a clearance without knowing where the helicopter was actually located. Clearance Delivery needs to ensure where an aircraft/helicopter is located before issuing a clearance and in this instance if a HFR [Hold For Release] had been issued to the pilot; he would not have departed without obtaining a release at which point somebody would have had to know where the helicopter was positioned. If the CD person had told the pilot to contact GC when ready to taxi; this would have brought up the opportunity for the pilot to point out he wouldn't be taxiing as he was not at the airport.  Easiest thing to do is verify the position of an aircraft before issuing a clearance.




Synopsis: Omaha TRACON Controller reported that an IFR aircraft departed on an IFR clearance without being properly released into the airspace.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were approaching ABQ from the southeast; and were cleared the visual for Runway 3 from too high and too fast of a position. This was the end of our day and had taken a lengthy delay leaving [the departure airport]; we unwisely tried to make the approach work; but below 1;000 feet I knew that I was forcing a bad situation and initiated a go-around. We got vectors around and landed on Runway 8.We had flown a transcontinental red eye; short adequate rest at best; then flew through a high work load weather event on the east coast. Our flight to ABQ got delayed by 1:24 due to catering and ground crew issues. All told; after flying 11:59 in a twenty four period that involved a red eye; I was more tired than I realized and it had a definite impact on my judgement.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported executing a missed approach to a runway due to an un-stabilized approach due to fatigue.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Windshear
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During the final two-three seconds (approximately) prior to touchdown; at an altitude of less than 50 ft. (approximately); we encountered a loss of airspeed that momentarily triggered the stick-shaker. The approach was stable at 500 ft. AGL and; due to the conditions present; I briefed my intention to maintain an airspeed at the 'top of the bug'. At 100 ft. AGL; the PM (Pilot Monitoring) noted the airspeed to be at VREF+10. While descending below approximately 50 ft. AGL; the airspeed decayed rapidly; until reaching approximately 120 KIAS (as reported by the PM during the Post-flight De-briefing) at touchdown. [This was an approximate 15- to 20-kt loss]By my estimation; this event occurred due to two primary factors; the first of which was the challenging weather conditions at touchdown. I mitigated these threats by briefing the conditions; flying a reasonably faster airspeed; and diligently anticipating and reacting to the gains and losses of airspeed. The sudden last-second decay in airspeed was unforeseen; yet not severe enough (given present altitude and idle thrust) to warrant a go-around as a safer course of action. Secondly; the stick-shaker may have been activated through a temporary and anomalous triggering of the Stall Protection System. This theory was further substantiated by the fact that the very next landing (under nearly ideal circumstances; and good; smooth technique) saw an activation of the Auto-Ignition system at approximately 20 ft. AGL.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported stick shaker during landing.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMA
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the CIGAR Sector when I noticed an incomplete data block flashing at me from ZJX.  ZJX called me and inquired if Aircraft X was flashing at the correct sector.  I told them that he was but I had limited flight plan information on the flight.  I only had a call sign; altitude; and code.  This has been a continuing problem that has been occurring with ZJX between their HOST system and our ERAM system.  Occasionally the flight information will not pass properly and manual coordination must be completed.  Apparently when the ZJX Controller passed the flight plan information he inadvertently passed info on Aircraft Y; going to MIA instead of Aircraft X going to MIA.  I did not recognize the wrong call sign in the coordination and as a result; I input the wrong type in the flight plan that I entered going to MIA approach resulting in a deviation.FIX ERAM!!!  The 'temporary workaround' of manually coordinating flights that do not pass with the ZJX HOST/ZMA ERAM compatibility errors were the contributing factor in this deviation.




Synopsis: ZMA Controller describes situation where another controller passes him flight information but passes the wrong aircraft call sign which leads to an airspace deviation.  Problem may be associated with ERAM at ZMA and Host at ZJX.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were climbing to 16;000 feet when we received an urgent radio call from Houston departure: '[Company] Traffic Alert; turn right to heading 330 immediately; maintain 11;000 feet.' During that radio call we also got an aural 'Traffic' alert from the TCAAS; with a target showing close off our left side 900 feet below us and climbing. I reached up; selected Heading mode and set 330 while the FO (First Officer) set 11;000 feet in the altitude window. I then disconnected the autopilot and increased the rate of turn. However; we were already at 11;600 feet and climbing when told to maintain 11;000 feet; with the traffic coming up from below; there was no way I was going to descend; so I maintained the climb while in the turn. We could hear other radio calls while maneuvering; but none with our call sign. As we passed 13;000 feet. Approach Control had us turn back left to a 310 heading; then a 260 heading. The FO asked Approach what altitude they wanted us at; and they responded '16;000 feet.' We set the altitude in the FCU; turned the autopilot back on; the flight continued normally. Our jumpseater; who was listening on his own earpiece; later stated that he heard approach telling someone to 'Expedite climb to 16;000 feet;' but didn't hear our call sign used. All of us agreed that either the call sign was blocked; or the Controller omitted it in the rush to avoid a mid-air collision. We never received a TCAS RA; just the 'Traffic' call; the Controller's immediate turn must have moved us out of the way before it deteriorated into an RA event. Closest altitude the FO saw was 600 feet below us; but not sure what the closest lateral separation was.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported complying with aircraft indication instead of ATC instruction to avoid traffic.
Date: 202007
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: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Passenger in XXY was not wearing a mask. After asking her to put a mask on; she told me she would not be wearing a mask due to medical issues. There was not any information on my records concerning her. When CSA agent came to the aircraft;  I asked her if she had had a conversation with above mentioned passenger about wearing a mask. She said; 'No.' I told her about my conversation with passenger. She called her Supervisor who told her to enter the information in the computer. There was XX passengers on board. No social distancing.  Back of plane was packed. So; here we were with no options and an unsafe situation.  Policy is for crew and passengers to wear a mask. Why isn't it reinforced with passengers? I felt bad for everyone around her. Such a conflict of conviction! Either Airline wants to be safe or not. But; don't make a policy that effects people's health and then don't enforce it. The result could be staggering.If policies are to keep people safe; then enforce it!




Synopsis: Flight attendants reported a passenger not wearing a mask due to a reported medical condition.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our morning began with a crew rest delay; followed by problems with ground transportation. This led to us arriving to the gate around XA:55 for our XB:05 departure. When we spoke to the gate agent she was confused; and explained they did not know about the delay. We told her about the situation and started to go down the jetbridge. At this point the gate agent informed us that 'they were all down there waiting for us.' After a few minutes of confusion it became apparent that the flight had been boarded by the agent without any crew. The gate agent thought we were on board and simply boarded 'on time without checking. In her exact words: 'I walked over; and everything looked ready. So I boarded.' The entire plane was boarded with no crew on board and unattended. The aircraft was also fueled with passengers on board and no one to perform an evacuation. I stepped on to the aircraft and immediately noticed that someone had been in the flight deck and turned the GPU power on. At this point we began to deplane the passengers. During this I contacted scheduling and dispatch to pass along what was happening. Then we performed a thorough security search of the entire aircraft.Although the only negative impact of this incident was a slightly delayed flight; this could have had a much worse outcome. This was a complete breakdown of not only safety procedures for our passengers; but also aircraft security procedures. Safety of our passengers is the most important part of what we do. It goes without saying how bad the outcome could have been had someone been in that group with malicious intent; left with a completely unattended aircraft full of passengers. Since the incident occurred before we arrived I was not personally able to find out much information. Everyone denied accessing the flight deck.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the gate agent boarded passengers on the aircraft with no crew on board and unattended.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Had partial power engine failure on initial climb out landed safely on runway opposite direction. Valve spring was determined to be the problem. No aircraft damage besides engine.




Synopsis: C172 Instructor Pilot reported a safe landing at departure airport after experiencing a partial power loss shortly after takeoff.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Two accidents almost happened today. My student and I were in the pattern.  We extended downwind to allow a DC-3 to land.  As we were preparing to turn base we saw a plane pass about 100 ft or less underneath us. They made no radio calls and only entered the pattern on extended base.  They continued onto final and landed shortly after the DC-3 touched down.  The DC-3 was still on the runway (approximately 2500 ft separation). He promptly left making no departure radio call but did report leaving the area to the west.




Synopsis: Piper PA-28 instructor reported they were on an extended downwind when another small airplane cut under them nearly causing a midair collision.