elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: ANJLL4 arrival to LAX. We were 5 nm in trail of an A320 between ANJLL & CAANN at 19;000 feet. We began to encounter light choppy air vibrations for about 3-4 minutes. It had been smooth air until then. All at once; the plane yawed and rolled to the left about 70 degrees. The autopilot disengaged and the PIC/Pilot Flying grabbed the controls and hit hard right rudder and hard right ailerons. The plane continued to roll left and then suddenly began responding to the control input. I; the Pilot Not-Flying; called LA ATC and informed them of our situation. They responded appropriately with a lower altitude and heading away from the wake of the leading aircraft.There should be greater spacing from these large planes. With all the data there is no reason these types of circumstances should occur; yet they still do. We could have easily ended upside down and even worse. It seemed ATC was aware of and concerned with something due to speed and altitude changes issued to us. However; nothing was done or at least the bare minimum was done to mitigate this from happening yet it did happen. For the sake of safety; additional spacing should be required! This was easily preventable.




Synopsis: CE-560XL Captain reported a near upset occurred as a result of a wake turbulence encounter on arrival into LAX 5 miles in trail of an A320.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Go Around
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft ahead failed to exit landing runway in timely fashion. ATC instructed us to execute a go-around; Runway 34 right. Simultaneous departing traffic on 35 left was offset and behind. We were than instructed to turn right heading of 105. Almost immediately we got a proximity warning. We were then instructed shortly after to fly runway heading and climb maintain 9;000 ft. ATC came back after giving us vectors for Runway 35R; informing us they had a mix up in call signs. Their intent was to turn the aircraft heading 105 departing off of Runway 35L. It seemed that air traffic control had a high workload at the time of our go around and I assume the controller was fatigued. Suggest continued use of good situational awareness about surrounding air traffic environment during high workload for air traffic control.




Synopsis: Regional Jet pilot reported experiencing an airborne conflict with an aircraft taking off from a parallel runway during an ATC directed go-around.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B IAD
ATC / advisory: Tower IAD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On landing; I noticed the Runway Entrance Lights (RELs) illuminating. This was distracting as it appeared; momentarily; to be a vehicle or small aircraft on the runway. I have never noticed these lights on landing at IAH; MCO; SEA or LAS. It may have been related to landing at dusk. I was/am aware of the recent commissioning of these lights and I was surprised to be inappropriately distracted by them for the first time after thousands of landings at IAD. I did report the lights visibility to aircraft on approach to Tower; but I got silence back on the radio before I went to Ground Control. In a subsequent conversation with some of the engineers involved in the Runway Status Light project at the FAA; they indicated that they had not heard of any reports of problems so I suspect that the report to ATC was not passed along. They also indicated that the lights should NOT have been visible/distracting to pilots on approach and landing. I told them that I could see them from about 400 FT AGL all the way to rollout and that they were distracting. I suspect that the lights were still on daylight (bright) during the dusk conditions. My concern is that these lights could be distracting to aircraft on approach and landing. They turned on and off; looking somewhat like a vehicle or small aircraft moving on/across the runway. On my flight; I could discern that the runway was clear; but it took time out from my monitoring duties. Had conditions been worse; an aircraft might be induced to go around (right decision when in doubt!). Possibly a more severe risk is that we (pilots) could become used to this distraction; and some day when there really is a vehicle or small aircraft on the runway; we won't go-around (or question the runway status).




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reports being distracted by the Runway Entrance Lights (RELs) illuminating at IAD during landing on Runway 19C.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: Tower JFK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: On the LENDY Arrival from LGA [VOR]; east of JFK; to [the] south of JFK; to a westbound heading to the Jersey shore descending to 3;000 feet. I flew up the Jersey shoreline at 3;000 feet to an intercept heading to ILS 4R at JFK at 25-30 miles from JFK. I was descended to 2;000 feet on base to final at approximately 25 miles out. At 2;000 feet; flaps 2; 160 knots; on localizer; prior to GS intercept and approximately 10 to 8 miles from the runway; we struck the first bird on the Captain's L1 window near the center post. A quick check of the engines indicated no abnormal condition. Within one minute we struck the second bird at 2;000 feet with a loud bang from the front of the aircraft; but could not see the strike. The engines; again checked normal. We notified the JFK control tower to warn the aircraft behind us. I continued the approach for an uneventful flaps 3 landing at JFK on 4R. I called JFK tower on the phone after gate arrival to relay there was no apparent damage to the aircraft; but we had two bird strikes. One on the Captain's L1 window and one on the radome at the 1 to 2 o'clock position; under the R1 window. JFK tower told me 5 aircraft after me were involved in bird strikes on the same ILS 4R approach. I recommended that the tower ask approach to bring aircraft in at 3;000 feet to glide slope intercept in an attempt to miss the flock(s) of birds on runway 4R at the lower 2;000 feet. JFK was landing both 4L and 4R. JFK [Company Ops] inspected the aircraft.




Synopsis: An Airbus flight crew reported a double bird strike while conducting a night approach. There was no apparent damage to either engine or the airframe and an uneventful landing was accomplished.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Agusta Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other pre-takeoff
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was PIC of an EMS helicopter. I started up in preparation to leave an accident scene. As I reached 100% RPM; the aircraft rotor system was struck by an oncoming vehicle in the far lane. The Department of Public Safety had opened the highway to traffic prior to ensuring I had departed the scene and a 26-foot rental truck struck my rotors; damaging all four rotor tips and rendering the aircraft unairworthy. There were no injuries; only damage to the aircraft and truck.This was an easily avoidable mishap. The person(s) in charge of the scene should have made sure we were either clear of the scene or that our spot on the ground was not a conflict with traffic. My Medic requested that the highway remain closed until we departed; but that request was ignored; resulting in this mishap.




Synopsis: Rotor of an A-119 helicopter preparing to depart from a highway accident scene was struck by a truck while still on the ground. Damage was inflicted on all four rotor blades.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Portable
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Staffing; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During preflight; discovered both O2 walk around bottles mounted in the aft section of aircraft with masks attached to the incorrect port.  Masks found attached to the (Lo) setting when they should have instead been connected to the (Hi) setting.  I corrected both bottles by attaching each hose adapter to the Hi setting.  This issue brings forward two significant risks. While flight attendants are responsible for ensuring masks are corrected to the appropriate setting; it is highly unlikely that a flight attendant switched or incorrectly connected these masks.  More likely; both bottles were provisioned to the aircraft incorrectly by Line Maintenance.  Since these types of bottles came to Company X during the merger with Company Y; it is suspected that Legacy Company Line Maintenance Techs are unfamiliar with the correct setting of the mask.  The hazard is that a passenger in medical distress; or flight attendant during a decompression will not receive an adequate flow of O2 -- placing both at increased risk for injury and/or death.This event also further underscores the substandard (or lack of thorough) pre-flight checks accomplished by flight attendants. It is also highly likely the majority of Legacy Company flight attendants are still unfamiliar with these types of bottles due to inferior training; thus increasing the risk for error during pre-flight.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported on pre-flight that both O2 walk around bottles in the aft section had their masks attached to the low flow port instead of the Hi flow port as required.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E I90
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: The event happened in Houston Approach airspace. We were just starting to descend VIA the GESNR at 14;000. At GESNR we encountered moderate to severe wake turbulence. We were about 12 nm behind a B747. The Controller advised us that we were following the B747. Upon encountering the wake; the autopilot disconnected as the aircraft rolled 30+ degrees. Once we regained control of the aircraft the Captain immediately checked on our FA. She was fine and was able to brace herself and avoid injury. The seatbelt sign was also on at the time of the encounter. After checking on the FA; the Captain reported the encounter to the Controller. ATC allowed us to pull our speed to attempt to avoid any other encounters. We should have laterally offset or ATC should have given us more space. We were level and flew right through the path of the 747. They should have put us on another arrival; or vectored us off to avoid having us fly through this path.




Synopsis: ERJ First Officer reported a 'moderate to severe' wake turbulence encounter at 14;000 ft on arrival into IAH 12 miles in trail of a B747.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CRQ.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CRQ
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Aircraft component: Autopilot
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; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying in IMC intending the ILS approach at CRQ. I was receiving vectors and was flying with the autopilot engaged. Upon reaching the approach path; I engaged the NAV/APPR function on the autopilot. The autopilot indicated that it was engaged. The plane began its turn inbound and I started a descent having become established on course. The autopilot disengaged without an audible alert and I didn't immediately realize it and ended up off course.At that point I was contacted by ATC with an altitude alert and asked if I intended to try to complete the approach. I said I was having a problem. They gave me a climb back to 4;000 FT and a new heading. I went where directed and was vectored back for the approach which I then hand flew without further incident.




Synopsis: An SR22 pilot failed to note the autopilot had disconnected upon intercepting the ILS to CRQ. ATC received an altitude alert and provided vectors back for a successful hand flown ILS.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; 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: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working the Radar on sectors 6 and 26.  I received a hand-off from high altitude sector and the assigned altitude was FL260; which was below the stratum of the high altitude sector and the top altitude of my airspace.  The aircraft checked in with the altitude FL260 and was descending into my airspace.  Prior to this there was no coordination done from the previous controller that the aircraft would be descending into my airspace other than what was in the data block.  I did protect for the possibility that the aircraft was actually descending as well as if it was assigned FL270 as I would normally expect.There needs to be clear guidance as to when the assigned altitude in the data block can be accepted as coordination.  If this scenario were to happen during a very busy ski country day I would have no time to reach out to stop that aircraft and there will be a real safety issue if this practice is allowed to continue.  Most controllers wouldn't do this; but there are a few who are continuing to do this because there is no clear direction in any documents.




Synopsis: A ZDV Controller reported of a lack of coordination from the overlying sector. Aircraft descended with a hand off into his airspace. Other than data block information the Controller reported the other sector should have coordinated something verbally. The reporter stated there was no clear direction in any documents as to what should happen.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pilot Seat
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At cruise; I adjusted my lap belt and the left hand portion of the belt came loose from the seat pan. I was able to locate the nut and washer that had completely detached from the bolt; and I reattached the belt assembly by hand. I entered this discrepancy in the aircraft logbook; advising that the assembly was only hand tightened.  I felt this was a safety issue; as I could have been injured if we had performed a rejected takeoff; or if we had encountered severe turbulence. FAA regulations state I need to wear my lap belt at all times while in my seat. I reattached the lap belt by hand so that I would have some degree of safety and protection. I don't know how this nut backed off the bolt holding my lap belt to the seat. Other A321 aircraft in our fleet should probably be inspected. Other A321 aircraft in our fleet should be inspected for lap belt security. It looked like a lock nut type fastener that obviously failed during service. I will be giving my lap belts a firm pull to check security from now on.




Synopsis: Pilot reported that the seat lap belt attaching hardware came off during flight.
Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [During] practice approaches; student was controlling the airplane. On one approach the student descended to 500 FT above homes near the airport. I told him to increase the altitude to 600 FT AGL. As he was maneuvering he managed to descend to 300 FT AGL then climbed. We then made three more approaches and landings all of which were normal approaches in all aspects. This student will not be low in the future on an approach to an airport.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported his student descended to within 300 FT AGL near homes on a practice approach.