elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A80.TRACON, GA
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Traffic Management
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I was merely the TMC (Traffic Management Coordinator) in the room when the event occurred. Aircraft X was inbound and lost his auto pilot. It appeared that the pilot was a little too panicked to fly the airplane on an instrument approach and was struggling to hold a heading and an altitude. A Controller was working the emergency at the time and by the Controller in Charge's (CIC) account; was doing a good job. The OM (Operations Manager) decided to send a Supervisor to take over the position; even though the Supervisor isn't certified at all on satellite sector. The CIC said that this caused a little chaos initially; but then it settled down. All of us in the room were scratching our heads as to why you'd pull a full time controller off the position to plug in a supervisor that controls 8 hours a month and isn't certified on the position and no; he isn't pilot either. Maybe this is a new FAA policy? If so; not a good one. As a part time controller myself; I would never want to take a position from a Controller on a position that I don't work and work an emergency. Staffing was not an issue and I can't fathom why the OM would put the supervisor in that position and why the pilot didn't get the more experienced person available. My recommendation would be to let the controller do their job.




Synopsis: Traffic Management Coordinator reported an Operations Manager assign a non certified Supervisor to work a sector during an aircraft emergency event.
Date: 201308
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I observed the use of a [galley service] truck during a ground stop due to lightning; park an aircraft. This method of operation I feel is unsafe since an aircraft is being parked without the use of chocks; hooked up to push tractor and the loading bridge is able to approach the aircraft.  We had an incident two days prior where during a ground stop due to lightning the catering truck parked an Airbus and about 8 minutes after arrival the pilot released the brakes and the aircraft rolled back about 5 feet while passengers were exiting the aircraft. The only thing stopping the aircraft was the fact that the 1L door was pinned up against the loading bridge. Somebody could have been seriously hurt walking off the plane by getting pinned or falling to the the ground at ramp level.  The company is putting passengers and crew in danger of allowing this operation to continue since there is always the possibility of the brakes being released while an aircraft is not chocked or connected to a push tractor.




Synopsis: A ramp person reports that his company's practice of marshalling aircraft from a catering truck during a lightning storm is unsafe since chocks are not installed and the aircraft may roll if the Captain releases the parking brake.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MSLP.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower MSLP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other unknown
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Software and Automation; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: We were cleared to depart on the ATUMA3B. The chart depicts climbing on the CAT 092/15.0 and above 8;000 ft. then turning to a 315 heading. This is also what is depicted when selecting the departure in the FMC. However; the narrative below says to fly out the CAT 092 until 8000 and then turning to a 315 heading. It does not say to fly to the fix depicted on the chart only to turn once passing 8;000 ft.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported that the MSLP ATUMA3B SID depiction differs from the narrative.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PWM.Airport, ME
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower PWM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Taxied out on Taxiway A from the terminal to Runway 11. I was temporarily confused because there is a well-marked Taxiway H near the departure end of Runway 11 that does not appear on my PWM Jepps 11-1. After confirming with the other pilot that we were indeed correct by staying on A; all the way to the end and that H did not appear on our Jepps chart; we took off safely using the full length (from Taxiway A entrance) of Runway 11; as we had been cleared to do.




Synopsis: Air Carrier pilot reported at PWM there is a taxiway that is not indicated on their Jeppesen Chart. The taxiway is also not on the FAA Chart Airport diagram.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737-900
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Go-around due to aircraft ahead on the runway. It didn't clear due to slippery runway conditions. ZZZ indicated we'd be the last to land on [Runway] XXR and then it would close for snow removal. The aircraft which landed ahead of us couldn't make the turn off and stopped. Tower instructed us to go around. We set up and landed on [Runway] XY.




Synopsis: 737-900 Captain reported receiving a missed approach instruction from the Tower Controller. The preceding aircraft was unable to exit the runway in a timely manner due to snow and slippery conditions.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TRI.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C TRI
ATC / advisory: TRACON TRI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our ATC clearance given to us by TRI Ground was: As filed; [maintain] 3;000 FT; [expect] 13;000 FT in ten minutes; a departure frequency and a squawk. Holding short of Runway 23; our takeoff clearance by TRI Tower was: Fly runway heading; cleared for takeoff Runway 23. I read back the clearance as stated. After initial climb and level off at 3;000 FT MSL (1;500 FT AGL) Departure gave us a vector; a left turn. According to EGPWS the turn put the aircraft on a course for terrain depicted red. I asked the Captain if he would like me to request higher. ATC then advised our initial departure clearance was to 10;000 FT initially and to expect 13;000 FT in 10 minutes. We informed ATC that his clearance was not what we received; copied; and read back. We were then cleared to climb and maintain 10;000 FT; which we did. No EGPWS cautions or warnings were ever triggered and no other disruptions to flight occurred.The departure procedure for TRI airport on all runways is to fly runway heading to 3;000 FT and no turns below 3;700 FT. Even though we were in positive radar contact we should have not accepted a vector until we complied with the ODP.




Synopsis: Confusion reigned on departure when the CRJ-200 flight crew and Ground Control failed to agree as to their cleared altitude after takeoff from TRI.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CHA.Airport, TN
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C CHA
ATC / advisory: TRACON CHA
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; 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; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft leveled off at 3600 and then told me he was continuing his descent. I believe I misheard him and thought he said he was continuing inbound. The 3600 MVA [Minimum Vectoring Altitude] was busted and I had him climb back to 3600. Listen actively.




Synopsis: Controller reported not listening correctly to a read back which had the pilot descend below the Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: EC135
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While enroute back to base from an interfacility transport the crew decision was to abort the flight and return to airport. While executing the 180 degree left turn; aircraft began to enter a low cloud along the ridge line. Pilot decided that continuing the turn could possibly result in an IMC encounter while in a left hand bank. Prior to entering obscuration pilot leveled the aircraft and accepted the IMC event. Pilot announced IMC to crew and proceeded with the IMC emergency procedures for IMC event. Medic in left seat assisted pilot with the IMC cards and approach plates. Upon reaching a VFR on top altitude pilot elected to level off and be prepared to set up for the RNAV approach to base airport. During this time; Pilot; once aircraft control was well established (NON IFR aircraft/No Auto Pilot or HELISAS or MFDs); attempted contact with ATC. Pilot was unable to clearly receive ATC so pilot made call in the blind. Shortly after Pilot was able to receive ATC. Aircraft was configured for IFR flight and approach to base selected and activated. Pilot was following GPS guidance for the RNAV approach about the same time ATC provided heading and other clearance aircraft entered VMC conditions in vicinity of airport. Pilot notified ATC of encountering VMC conditions; and descended within VMC and flew VFR to airport. Upon landing crew debriefed the event and discussed anything we could have done better or improved upon as well as those things we did well. Operations was aware at all times of the status of the flight.Make the decision to abort as early as possible; do not hesitate.




Synopsis: EC135 helicopter pilot reported entering IMC on a return to base from a transport flight; requested assistance from ATC; and was able to descend on an RNAV approach to VMC and landed successfully.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Cruise climb stopped at FL330 by ATC for unseen traffic at FL340. Suspect crossed jetwash/wake turbulence. Sudden; very quick turbulence jolt encountered from smooth condition both before and after event. Flight attendants had just started service and were in aisle. 3 reported injured knee; wrist or back ache but declined medical assistance and continued flight to destination.


Second narrative: We had leveled off at FL330 in the vicinity of HACKS intersection and were awaiting further climb to FL340 once clearing crossing traffic at FL340. We were in clear air with no visual cues that turbulence was in the area (cloud formations; TS; etc.). I had asked for a ride report before turning off the seat belt sign and was informed that there were no adverse reports. The turbulence event was moderate in intensity with both lateral and vertical motions lasting approximately 1 second. I communicated with the F/As to determine if any passenger or crew member were injured. The F/A advised that no passenger appeared to have been injured; but that multiple F/As were experiencing physical discomfort as a result of the turbulence event.


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence at FL330 from an aircraft at FL340 that resulted in minor injuries to three flight attendants.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While practicing landings in the pattern at ZZZ. Myself and my student were downwind at 1400 feet MSL when we noticed a drone flying at the same altitude but heading north directly in our path. We took an evasive maneuver by banking to the right to fly around the drone. The drone did not alter course; heading; or altitude. Had we not maneuvered a head on mid-air collision was inevitable.  After I reported this over the CTAF; Unicom attempted to contact the drone operator via the radio frequency but with no luck. This drone seemed to resemble that of an amateur photography style not a professional.




Synopsis: Instructor Pilot reported a NMAC with a UAV while in the traffic pattern.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was an emergency inbound to Runway XXL. He did a low approach over Runway XXL so we could check his gear status. It appeared down. The FLM called the alert and the emergency vehicles responded to their standby positions and the fun began. The Fire Chief was instructed to go to the emergency frequency. He was transmitting on it but [not] receiving. The FLM called the airport to coordinate since the aircraft was on a 6 mile final and wanted the vehicles to follow him down the runway after he landed. The Fire Chief gets the emergency information. The aircraft landed and rolled to the end and turned off at Taxiway Papa and held short of Runway XXR. I was working Local and had an aircraft in position on the runway. I know not to roll when the Fire Department is on the field because you never know what they will do. A couple vehicles were on my frequency so I crossed them. A couple vehicles were on the other local and a couple were talking to the FLM on the handheld radio we use for airport operations. All vehicles needed to cross an active runway to respond to the Aircraft X. Wouldn't it be safer if they were all on the same frequency? Every single time the Fire Department is on the field it's a comedy of errors. This must stop. Let the Fire Department listen to a tape of this event. Put all vehicles on the same frequency. Schedule a drill on the airport. Have the Fire Department monitor in the Tower.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described an event when emergency vehicles responding to an aircraft in difficulty were on several different frequencies attempting to cross an active runway; which created confusion during the emergency response.
Date: 202005
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other Landing
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [Instructor] was teaching pre-solo landing training and the student was on glide path and entered the round out and flare and was correctly performed. Normal sink to landing stall horn sounded just as we touched the runway centerline the plane abruptly veered to the grass leaving no time for go around. I immediately took control of aircraft and applied brakes as we entered the grass. We encroached the grass approximately 20 to 40 ft. I determined that the we had not hit anything and the engine was at idle and I turned the plane back to re-enter the runway to taxi back to the FBO to inspect if there was damage. Upon inspection of prop; airframe I determined that only damage was a flat on the left tire. I called [Chief Pilot] to discuss the incident and I determined that a safe flight back to [our departure airport] was the best course of action. After discussing with Maintenance a general assumption was made that we believe the student pilot had applied left brake prior to landing causing the flat spot on the tire.




Synopsis: Cessna 172 Flight Instructor reported the student ran off the runway while landing.