elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi; In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Was forced to work Local Center; Local East; and City combined this afternoon with busy arrivals and multiple VFR aircraft. Taxiway [X] requires a back taxi for departing aircraft in our south configuration. Multiple aircraft lined up waiting to back taxi. And multiple VFR and IFR aircraft arriving. I had to time up the back taxi; hoping for no confusion; while working three different frequency with near constant congestion. I requested extra spacing to Runway XX and did not get it. I also had multiple arrivals to Runway YYL and VFR traffic on the Tower radar position. I was totally task saturated and counting on everything to go right as there was no way I could scan the multiple situations happening at the same time. Management knows that this type of situation has become common place with our limited staffing. And yet; they refuse to meter in arrivals to provide spacing. Even when directly requested by a Controller. The confusion on frequency is pretty high as I can't respond to many of the aircraft on a timely basis. We are expected to do our best and really it's just a hope that something really ugly doesn't happen. I continue to submit these reports because I want it documented that there were warning signs before an incident happens. We have tried to mitigate some of the complexity by limiting VFR services in the Bravo airspace. But there is still a lot of congestion because they are constantly calling in for requests. These measures are not nearly enough when we still have multiple aircraft that need to back taxi on Runway XX and a constant stream of arrivals. I see it as a safety priority to slow the arrival rate; but it appears airline schedules are more important. I was fortunate to not have a go-around (despite multiple close calls) during this session; but there is very little protection right now for unexpected events. I feel completely beat down this week. The attitude right now in our facility is every man for himself.




Synopsis: Tower Controller working combined positions described safety of flight concerns due to added workload issues.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon climb out from DEN on the DDRTH1 departure we experienced wake turbulence approaching NKATA. While controlling the aircraft we flew through the 10;000 or below restriction; and subsequently the 11;000 or below restriction at KAYOO by approximately 600 feet. By the time we decided to correct for this KAYOO was passed and we continued to climb via the departure. As the pilot flying I should always brief any level offs. Especially level offs that occurs quickly on departure. I should have adjusted my speed with VNAV speed to increase my rate of climb to try to mitigate re encountering the wake turbulence.  As a crew pay better attention to my path and the immediate crossing restrictions.


Second narrative: Upon climb out from DEN on DDRTH1 departure we experienced wake turbulence approaching point NKATA. While controlling the aircraft we flew through the 10;000 or below restriction and; subsequently; the 11;000 or below restriction at KAYOO by approximately 600 feet. By the time a correction was attempted; KAYOO was passed (it is 3.1 NM from NKATA) and we continued to climb to cruise on schedule without incident. As the Pilot Monitoring; I should have noted the restrictions sooner and called them out when the wake turbulence was encountered and the Pilot Flying began the recovery.


Synopsis: B737-900 flight crew reported overshooting an altitude restriction departing DEN when they were distracted by a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Aircraft component: Navigational Equipment and Processing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Object
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was leisurely taking pictures of the sunset and the lights around the cathedral with my DJI Inspire 1 Pro drone. After approximately 7 minutes of flight with approximately 5+ minutes left of flight and 58% battery life and visual contact the UAS lost signal with the ground control unit and 'disconnected'. It was last visually seen above a parking lot. At this point I initiated lost signal procedures to return the UAS at 400 feet to home. After approximately 10 minutes I considered it a flyaway. I had my wife stay at the home (return) location as I looked for the UAS and looked until [late that night] and did not recover the UAS. I called the local PD and made a lost property report at that time. [Three days later] I received a call from a police detective saying that they had recovered the drone but would not release it or any information until [2 days later]. When I met with the detective she informed me that there was no injury but approximately $500 in property damage occurred (broken window) in an unoccupied space and fell 25 stories with no injury to people. She also indicated that there were no local laws broken or punitive measure taken. The drone had been totaled and she released it back to me at this time. I met with the property owner of the [building] and gave him my insurance info.




Synopsis: A DJI Inspire 1 Pro UAS owner lost communication with the aircraft which then did not return 'home' but hit a tall building destroying the UAS and breaking a window 25 stories up.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence; 7
Aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: While taking of from a 900 foot gravel bar a wind shear/ down draft was encountered. The event forced the aircraft back down and damaged the aircraft.




Synopsis: A pilot departing from a '900 foot gravel bar' reported a wind shear encounter forced the aircraft back down resulting in damage to the aircraft.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Flight & Navigation Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: CA (Captain) and I were set up to takeoff. I ran the before takeoff flow and once I pressed the TAKEOFF CONFIG button we got the aural warning takeoff trim. I looked at the trim and it was set to 8 and in the green band so I bumped the trim down a little bit and pressed the TAKEOFF CONFIG button again. This time we got the takeoff okay aural warning. After running the before takeoff checklist tower clears us for takeoff. Shortly after setting the thrust we get the NO TAKEOFF CONFIG EICAS message. We abort the takeoff and I let ATC know what's going on. They instruct us to turn off the runway and go to the pad next to the runway. Once we get there my CA and I pull out the QRH and do the procedure for NO TAKEOFF CONFIG the TAKEOFF CONFIG button and got takeoff okay aural warning as we did before. We run the full before takeoff checklist again and ATC once again gives us clearance to takeoff. This time no message appeared on the EICAS and we headed to our filed destination. The threat was this event happened in a critical phase of flight which was during takeoff. The error was that I didn't put the carrot on the trim further down to make sure the computer didn't see a discrepancy during takeoff. The undesired aircraft state was the trim showed 8 and in the green band but the carrot was towards the top of the green band and was hanging on the edge of being within tolerances. We probably hit a bump causing the trim to be out of range and putting the aircraft in an undesired aircraft state.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 crew reported receiving a TAKEOFF CONFIG  alert as the takeoff roll began. The crew rejected and determined the stabilizer trim; set at the green band edge; probably moved slightly as the aircraft accelerated over a bump on the runway.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Pitts S-1 All Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Aerobatics
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Post flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I decided to practice aerobatics east of Lake X and once I was done with practice I planned to perform 3 take off and landings in the Pitts S1. The airport was very full this day with 7 airplanes in the pattern ranging from Cessna 172's; a Cessna 150; and a Cessna 182. Due to the Pitts high performance capabilities I decided to do a mid-field intersection departure for Runway XX. I held short at [intersection] taxiway awaiting the first 4 planes to perform their touch and go's. After the 4th plane was airborne there was an Aircraft Y on long final. I proceeded on the runway and held short until the 4th aircraft upwind traffic was insight. Once the traffic was insight and I saw that there was at least 500 ft distance from me and the other aircraft I proceeded to take off. Due to the performance capability I was catching up to the Aircraft Y on the climb. Since I was catching up with the Aircraft Y I called on the radio to the aircraft that I was going to side step to the right to provide room and continue my climb beyond 2;300 ft before making my left cross wind departure. My left cross wind turn was initiated at 3;500 ft. I proceeded to head to my practice area and after I was done I came back to do 3 take off and landings.The potential issue which was brought to my attention was that [the] Aircraft Y pilot felt that we had a 'near miss'. As a pilot in command I operated the aircraft safely providing separation of 500 ft of more and communicating with the pilot on the radio with my location and intentions. The Pitts S1 is a high performance aircraft which makes it difficult to be in the pattern full of under powered aircraft. To prevent this occurrence or situation I believe waiting until all 7 aircraft have landed before proceeding to take off or fly when the pattern is not as full as it was that morning. I also would note that performing a full length take off would also help instead of an intersection departure when the pattern has 7 or more aircraft in the pattern. Lastly; I would like to humbly end by saying that as an air race; air show and competition aerobatic pilot safety is the utmost importance to me. Following the rules being safe while making others feel safe is what we strive for in this industry.




Synopsis: Pitts pilot reported a NMAC with a slower aircraft during takeoff.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi out to the runway the aft galley oxygen masks dropped from the PSU above the F/A jumpseat. I advised the lead F/A who called the Captain and we returned to the gate and MX personal met the plane. MX shoved the oxygen masks back in and taped off the oxygen compartment with blue painters tape. (Yes blue painters tape) and then told us he deferred it. I questioned this procedure and was told they turned off the switch in the cockpit for oxygen in the flight attendant galley. I find this very disturbing that they deferred the oxygen above my jumpseat and acted like it was no big deal. This goes against everything we were ever taught in training and recurrent; as well as our flight attendant manual. Please look into this matter and I would like to know the outcome incase this happens again.




Synopsis: An A319 Flight Attendant reported galley oxygen mask door above the jumpseat opened during taxi out. The Captain was notified and the flight returned to the gate where the door was taped shut and deferred by Maintenance. The reporter does not believe this is legal.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: OPLR.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B747-400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center OPLR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Relief Pilot; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Received ATC clearance in OAI; which was 'Mirab3 Departure from Runway 03-Gidog-Flight Plan Route- FL270-124.8 for Departure-Squawk 4302.' Upon contact with Lahore ATC; they wanted to confirm our routing after Lajak (FIR). The routing they expected of us had no similarity to our CFP and our original clearance from OAI. ATC immediately became insistent that our original clearance was incorrect and challenged our presence. They also questioned our possession of an 'Overflight Permit' for Pakistan. We received a new clearance from Lahore; which took us far off our original route. Lahore ATC was unwilling to accept our CFP routing and/or our previous clearance. Contacted Indian ATC to coordinate a new FIR entry point and route into their airspace; which would now be the Samar intersection. Received a new clearance from the original Indian Controller; but the next Controller changed our route; again. The new routing changes eventually joined our original route at 'Alirarh' (ALI). We took no delays and maintained all assigned airway routing throughout the multiple routing changes. However; Lahore ATC was not happy that our CFP Routing was substantially different from the routing he viewed in his computer system. There was unexplained confusion over this matter; by both ATC and the flight crew. We simply altered our route to comply and forwarded all new Pakistan and Indian routing changes to company Dispatch via ACARS. Received a new CFP 'analysis' from Dispatch and continued the flight to HKG. I suggest better coordination and verification between company Dispatch and the various ATC facilities along our routes.


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


Synopsis: After departing OAI via their ATC clearance the flight crew of a B747-400 met intransigence from Lahore Control whose routing deferred from that they had received prior to departure. Three routing changes ensued until they finally rejoined their original clearance and completed their trip to destination.
Date: 202106
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Person / Animal / Bird
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for takeoff on Runway XX in XXX and completed the before takeoff checklist. We lined up on the runway and I gave flight controls to the First Officer as it was his takeoff. He initiated the takeoff roll and all was normal. I called 80 knots and a few seconds later we noticed a large bird flying in front of the aircraft; flying at engine height from left to right in front of the aircraft. We presume that we were around 90-100 knots of airspeed. Upon the bird flying past the right side of the aircraft we heard a loud bang with a simultaneous shake/vibration. (Between seeing the bird and the noise/vibration was about 1-2 seconds) As this happened I called for the reject and applied braking and reverse thrust. We came to a stop on the runway and I advised the passengers to remain seated and the First Officer advised ATC. The engines were idling normally; (although the vibrations on the #2 engine were briefly amber) and our brake temperatures were below then amber range. We exited the runway at exit and stopped as CFR (requested by us) evaluated the exterior of the aircraft; we had shut down engine #2 prior to them approaching the engine. They reported some damage to the engine but no other visible damage to elsewhere on the aircraft. I elected to taxi to the gate and we parked at Gate XX without issue. I had briefed the passengers and FAs about the situation and everyone was kept informed. While parked; I was advised by the B-FA that in addition to a loud bang and vibration (presumably when we hit the bird); there was a bright orange/yellow flash on the right side of the aircraft at the same time as these noises/vibrations. Upon inspection of the aircraft at the gate it was obvious that a bird was ingested into the #2 engine as there was debris inside of and damage to the engine.




Synopsis: Embraer Captain reported rejecting the takeoff due to #2 engine vibration after ingesting a bird on takeoff roll.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BKX.Airport, SD
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flying VFR-on-top at 9500 ft MSL. No flight plan filed and no VFR flight following in place. Since weather is VFR-on-top; I decided to go to an area where there is no icing and planned to take IFR clearance and land at an airport SW of MSP. However; I encountered icing conditions in stratus layers as I could see on the windshield and also on leading edges of the wings. Tried contacting Minneapolis Center for couple of minutes on 128.0 and 134.0 and got no reply; and I observed that ice build-up is progressing. I was monitoring the ceilings constantly in flight using Foreflight and Stratus device. HON reported 1200 OVC. Since I could not contact Minneapolis Center and thinking that turning around may expose me to more icing; I made a decision to just descend so that I can be in contact with the ground and hence descended through the clouds to an area nearer to HON. Once I broke out of the clouds between HON and BKX; I decided to proceed to BKX clear of clouds in class G airspace and safely landed at BKX where I spent the rest of the day and the night. After landing; I noticed that wing leading edges has around 1/8 to 1/4 inch ice.




Synopsis: A single engine pilot at 9500 feet; VFR on top; reported encountering icing conditions but was unable to contact Center for an IFR clearance to descend. A descent was initiated into IMC without a clearance; to VMC below 2400 feet. After landing; ice was still adhering to the leading edge of the wing.