elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Coming into SMF we requested [Runway] 16L from the first Arrival Controller. The pilot flying stayed high on the downwind and ATC inquired if we could make it to the runway from there. Believing we could; we said yes. The Controller then cleared us for [Runway] 16R which we were not prepared for. We asked for the left and he asked if we had the traffic on final in sight which we did. I recommended to the pilot flying that we should descend faster to get on glidepath. I don't think he realized how high he was and how the plane doesn't like to go down and slow down. We turned final high but still within the capabilities of making it down for a stable approach. We configured with gear down and flaps 3 and 180 KTS to get down on glidepath. ATC then informed us that we had a 70 KTS overtake on the traffic on final. We attempted to slow while trying to descend. About this time it was apparent we probably weren't going to be stable; but ATC issued a go-around as the preceding aircraft was rolling to the end of the runway and would not be off before our arrival. We executed a go-around and landed without incident. I should have been more assertive in recommending we descend sooner instead of staying high. Had we been lower sooner; we could have slowed more easily for the preceding traffic. One note from the go-around I would like to mention is that the intercom does not function while talking on the radio making it difficult for the pilot not flying to both answer ATC and comply with any commands from the pilot flying. It would be helpful in training to get more complex missed instructions than just straight out and get them while the pilot flying is trying to ask for heading; flight level change; and flap retractions.




Synopsis: Air Carrier flight crew reports being high and fast after a downwind entry to a visual approach. With the approach unstabilized and the traffic ahead not clearing the runway; ATC issues a go-around that the crew was about to announce on their own.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Carrier X was being vectored for a right base visual approach to ZZZ's Runway 32. When I issued the visual approach clearance he was established on a 5 mile base leg and had approximately 8 flying miles to the airport. Upon receipt of the visual approach clearance the pilot gave me no warning of his intentions to turn away from the airport for a downwind instead of continue on his natural path inbound. In my experience with ERJ-170's; I am confident that I put the aircraft in a position to allow safe and efficient descent into the airport without this downwind turn. When Air Carrier X took this unexpected turn he became a conflict with Aircraft Y; a VFR C182 being vectored inbound to follow the ERJ-170. Aircraft Y was southeast of ZZZ to 2;000 on a 020 heading which kept him southeast of Air Carrier X's projected base leg entry to Runway 32. When I observed the conflict I issued traffic to both aircraft and Aircraft Y reported the ERJ-170 in sight. Recommendation; as an ATCS; when I clear an aircraft for a visual approach I expect that aircraft to continue on a flight path inbound to the prescribed runway; and I am basing the rest of my traffic sequence on that expectation. If a pilot is in a position where he feels he has to do something different than that it is important that I have that information so that I can react accordingly. Air Carrier X was clearly established on the base leg for his approach and was given ample time for descent to Runway 32 without a downwind turn; therefore; I was expecting Aircraft Y to be in a safe position to follow him to the airport. I believe the lesson to be learned for this incident is that pilots and ATCS' always need to keep each other informed of information that could effect the safety of the NAS.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller described a conflict event between an air carrier on base cleared for a Visual Approach and another aircraft on a parallel track to follow; the base traffic made an unexpected turn to downwind.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Check Pilot; Instructor; Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This flight was being conducted as a training flight. I the instructor initiated a shutdown of the right engine to: 1. Assess the trainees actions in identifying and securing the correct engine and 2. To demonstrate to the Applicant the proper technique for restarting an engine at this altitude and that it may not even be possible to do a restart at this altitude. He demonstrated correct and proper technique. Upon his completion I moved the propeller control out of the Feather Position to prevent it from feathering and then moved the Condition Lever to the LOW Idle position. I've demonstrated this exercise dozens of times successfully to numerous trainees with non eventful results. This time; when I moved the condition lever to the LOW Idle position there was an almost immediate 'bang' from the engine and debris began exiting the exhaust stack. I immediately moved the condition lever to the IDLE Cutoff position; feathered the propeller and we secured the engine according to the engine shutdown checklist. We declared an emergency and landed uneventfully.




Synopsis: A BE20 engine failed after being shutdown for training at FL270; then restarted at which time a bang was heard followed by debris exiting the engine.
Date: 201208
Location: SEA.Airport, WA
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: The OLM ARRIVAL in SEA has had mandatory crossing altitudes and speeds changed multiple times in the last several years by NOTAM. Some of the NOTAMs have lasted well over a year. Several weeks ago the mandatory crossing altitude at ARVAD was again changed by NOTAM. Now it has been changed back.We have been told the reasons for the changes were to see how the new altitudes and speeds worked to help the flow of traffic. While this in itself is good; I feel it is extremely dangerous to be changing altitudes and speeds on arrivals and departures in order to see how the traffic flow works. The NOTAMs for these things are buried in amongst many other NOTAMs and can be difficult to find. Additionally; not all arrival NOTAMs are grouped together but can be spread out between FDC NOTAMs or hidden in between other unrelated regular NOTAMs. This is a huge threat; and I believe an invitation for an accident. If an altitude or speed needs to be changed for some urgent reason; then issue a NOTAM. Other than that; revise the approach plate! There should never be an altitude or speed change on an arrival or departure by NOTAM unless it is an emergency change. In all other cases changes should be made only by issuing new approach plates. Changing a speed; or especially a mandatory altitude; by NOTAM is unacceptable and is a huge threat.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported his displeasure at what he believes to be unnecessary NOTAMed changes to crossing altitudes on the OLYMPIA STAR to SEA. He believes that anything other than emergency changes to airways procedures should be introduced via a chart revision.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TPA.TRACON, FL
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D PIE
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X on an IFR flight plan on ILS to PIE. I switched communication to PIE outside of SONES. VFR Aircraft Y departed SPG and climbed westbound at Aircraft X; causing a conflict alert. Aircraft Y appeared to stop climb at 1;800. I spoke to Aircraft X after his missed approach at PIE and he indicated that he saw Aircraft Y and he was really close;" about 200 ft. below him. Either lower the Class Bravo shelf or put in a procedure for VFR's departing SPG."




Synopsis: Tampa TRACON Controller reported an NMAC between two aircraft as one was landing PIE and the other was departing SPG airport.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was shooting a practice GPS into an uncontrolled airport. I was making position calls every two to three miles out starting at 11 miles out. A flight school plane; from another airport; entered the pattern (non standard) and turned based over the numbers to cut me off; even though I had just called my position and was about 400 feet lower. I broke off the approach; kept an eye on the flight school plane and was sure not to land; until they had cleared the runway. [They] took a great deal of time on runway and I called and they said they were going to do a full stop. I landed without incident and the other aircraft took off and left the pattern. There was no danger; as I had the other aircraft in visual site; but it seemed strange to me that an instructor would teach a student to fly that way. I realize it was an uncontrolled airport; but that is even more reason to do things in a standard proper way.




Synopsis: The pilot of a small aircraft reported an airborne conflict with another aircraft; identified to be from a flight school located at another airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZLA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZLA
ATC / advisory: Center ZLA
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The preferred routing between [two California cities includes the waypoints OROSZ and COREZ].  The intersections OROSZ and COREZ present a huge confusion potential. Air traffic controllers are pronouncing the intersections 'Or-os' and 'Cor-os.' Over the radio; it's virtually impossible to distinguish between the two intersections. I believe that one of the two intersections should be renamed immediately to prevent confusion.




Synopsis: Corporate jet Captain reported a common route between two airports involves the waypoints OROSZ and COREZ which can sound similar over the radio. This can potentially create confusion for pilots.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B DFW
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Second aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working Meacham South. I had just started talking to Aircraft X west bound on the south airway at 8;000 feet. I descended him to 6;000 feet on initial contact because it was coordinated to leave him at 6;000 feet and hand him off to Meacham North to by-pass all the GKY traffic I was working. Unknown to me; and my hand-off; there was Aircraft Y level at 6;000 feet right under Aircraft X. Aircraft Y was going to GKY; but we didn't see him since he wasn't in hand-off status and there were numerous aircraft tags in the same area. Once we seaw Aircraft Y; Aircraft X was descending through 7;200 feet; and I told him to maintain 7;000 feet. He was descending too rapidly and went down to 6;600 feet then climbed back up. Dallas South turned Aircraft Y north to avoid Aircraft X.The whole GKY arrival push was the busiest I've seen since I've been here; busier than the Super Bowl! The traffic display over-head was completely full of GKY traffic! We needed to open Meacham North; Meacham West; Meacham South; Hand-off Meacham South and AR9. There was no pre-planning for this event at all. ZFW had to stop the corners a couple times for the GKY arrivals because we had too many aircraft landing there in our airspace. We had to slow aircraft to 170 knots on initial contact; and I was vectoring into 2 down-winds. Aircraft were being vectored so many more miles; a lot declared minimum fuel; and a few had to divert to other airports. The south airway crossing traffic (southeast corner to FTW; AFW; etc. and southwest corner to DAL; ADS; etc.) should have been routed around outside of our airspace to eliminate the crossing of traffic and the congestion by GKY. During major events at AT&T stadium; more needs to be done to set flow in GKY and eliminate the congestion around the GKY airport. The crossing traffic on the south airway should not be occurring either. The Meacham positions need to be split and opened a lot sooner.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported a loss of separation due to traffic volume and workload.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Windshear; Turbulence; 10
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During approach to Runway XX into ZZZZ; controller assigned us to descend to 3;000 ft. reported wind shear and turbulence in the area; we lost 500 ft. due to moderate turbulence and wind shear. Controller advised us of our lower than assigned altitude; we were in visual conditions and had the landing runway in sight. Continued approach and landed without further incident.


Second narrative: Descended below assigned altitude approximately 500 ft due to turbulence and wind shear just prior to glideslope intercept. Instead of climbing back up; just intercepted glideslope at that altitude..aircraft was below clouds with runway in sight.


Synopsis: Pilots reported losing 500 feet of altitude on final approach due to moderate turbulence and wind shear.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OMDB.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower OMDB
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Momentary stick shaker occurred on departure. We were heavy; 612k; and used max power to obtain a stop margin of 190 FT. Our takeoff sequence put us in trail of a heavy B-777 by about 5 miles. Shortly after takeoff; we encountered wake turbulence that rolled the aircraft right and left about 15 degrees; but was manageable. After accelerating; and cleaning up on schedule; with clean configuration; well above [slat retraction] speed; but not yet to [clean maneuvering speed]; we encountered wake turbulence again; this time a bit more severe; the aircraft rolling right to a bank of about 25 degrees. As advertised; when passing the bank limiter; stick shaker occurred momentarily. I unloaded the aircraft slightly; continued to accelerate; and rolled the aircraft back to level flight. The remainder of the flight was uneventful. Cause: Departure Control sequenced us too close in trail to previous heavy jet departure.


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


Synopsis: MD-11 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence on departure from OMDB in trail of a B777 that resulted in a momentary stick shaker.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: DA42 Twin Star
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Gear up landing during single engine visual approach and landing.




Synopsis: DA-42 Instructor Pilot reported gear up landing during training flight.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was distracted by requests being made by other passengers; as well as trying to maintain social distancing regarding my jumpseat. Maintain focus and slow down if I feel I am in the 'red' zone.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported having difficulty maintaining social distancing while at the jumpseat.