elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MSY
ATC / advisory: Tower MSY
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On base to final turn to runway 1 in MSY at approximately 1;000 feet AGL; we passed within 100 yards (estimated) of an unmanned aerial drone.  The drone was headed west at our altitude and made a quick turn to the south to avoid us.  The drone was a fixed wing; single propeller type commercial unit. It passed off our right wing.  I was the non pilot flying in the left seat.  My First Officer was focused on avoiding a helicopter that had been pointed out to us; so she didn't get as good of a look at the drone as I did.  She did; however; get a good enough look at it to determine that it was in fact an aircraft.  We did not take evasive action because the encounter happened so fast I initially wasn't sure what we had seen.  However; after taking a closer look out the right window; I was able to determine the drone was headed away from us and would be no factor.  I reported this drone encounter to MSY tower; and subsequently followed up with a phone call to the TRACON after landing to relay the specifics. Increase awareness of those who operate drone aircraft in the vicinity of commercial airports as to airspace regulations and possible collision hazards with commercial aircraft.  FAA needs to take action to regulate drone operations; especially within controlled airspace.




Synopsis: Captain reports sighting of a drone at 1;000 feet during approach to Runway 1 at MSY. No evasive action is taken by the reporter; but the drone appears to turn away.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CWA.Airport, WI
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; Snow; 0.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 58/58TC
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I had my pitot heat checked prior to winter and on prior flights. I was above icing at 10;000 ft. As I descended into minimal icing below 8000 ft. the pitot heat failed and the pitot tube iced up. I lost airspeed indication. This is a minor event with GPS ground speed on 2 GPS units to compensate. However within moments the AHRS started to malfunction and started intermittently cutting off heading information. Then at times it gave other error messages; flagged erroneous attitude indications and started falsely indicating 'dangerous' attitudes even during normal standard rate turns in the holding pattern. At one or two points the entire glass panel instrument display gave a fault and sit off all instruments (attitude; heading; HSI; glide slope; altimeter; etc.) requiring use of backup instruments. I was able to fly and complete the ILS approach using the intermittent indications; the GPS's (2) and backup indicators to minimums (300 ft.; 1/2) uneventfully. I contacted the avionics shop who advised me that loss of PITOT input ALONE can cause complete loss of AHRS FUNCTION; all modalities. The pitot tube was replaced and on the next flight I have had no problem. If this is true and loss of a pitot tube input can cause complete loss of the AHRS - loss of heading; attitude; HSI; altimeter; other vital indicators - especially in low IFR - this can become a very dangerous situation!! This is very bad engineering design without proper failsafe design. Loss of airspeed should allow a default mode that preserves indications of attitude; airspeed; the HSI; etc.!!!! This fault of the DESIGN could become life threatening to the pilot from what used to be a TRIVIAL problem in the past. The engineers can redesign this to have bester failsafe performance!




Synopsis: BE58 pilot experiences pitot heat failure descending through icing conditions at 8000 feet. Within moments the AHRS begins to malfunction along with other components of the glass panel display. Backup instruments and GPS ground speed are used perform an ILS approach to landing. The reporter is informed by his avionics shop that loss of pitot input can cause loss of AHRS function. He believes that the system should be designed to operate normally with loss of pitot input.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: At 32000 ft. just north of PUB the aircraft experienced Moderate to Severe turbulence. About 10 minutes before the incident the aircraft was in continuous light chop due to cloud tops. Seatbelt sign was on and PA was made by Pilot Monitoring and Pilot Flying reduced thrust to Mach .76. Pilot Monitoring contacted ATC for rides above; at about that time the airspeed began to show a decreasing trend and the Pilot Flying added power to adjust; airspeed continued to decrease and the Pilot Flying added even more power. At about that time the turbulence started and the right wing dropped and aircraft bank angles showed in excess of 50 degrees kicking off autopilot. Airspeed loss was an excess of 30-40 kts. whereby Pilot Flying applied max power. Barber poles came together however no overspeed or stall warning occurred. The aircraft lost at least 500 ft. during upset recovery with no excessive force to the aircraft. After recovery Pilot Monitoring requested an immediate climb due to Moderate to Severe turbulence up to 36000 ft. and was given 33000 ft. ATC gave us a frequency change and got an immediate climb to 36000 ft.; with no further incident.  During upset recovery aircraft lost at least 500 ft. This is an approximate guess by the pilots since the loss of airspeed and power at firewall along with excessive bank angles were in the primary scan. ATC gave an immediate climb clearance and crew complied. No further action was taken. Keep seat belt sign on when crossing know turbulent areas like over the Rockies; even when weather radar; and ATC aren't reporting anything. Keep the Flight Attendant's informed and always give those important PA's to passengers 'when seated to keep those seatbelts securely fastened in case we hit any unexpected turbulence'. Because it really does happen!




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported unexpected moderate to severe turbulence caused a temporary loss of control.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Dash 8-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The First Officer performed the cruise checklist when directed to. He noticed the differential pressure to be about 5.5 PSI and the cabin altitude climbing past 10;000 FT at FL240. With no master warning or warning light we descended to FL200. The differential pressure lowered and the cabin altitude read below 8;000 FT.




Synopsis: DHC8-100 Captain experiences a high cabin altitude at FL240 with no associated cabin altitude warning. Flight descends to FL200 and cabin altitude descends below 8;000 FT.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: A320
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While working the Handoff position; I observed an A320; on landing roll Runway XXL; roll past the G3 exit. Exits G2 and G1 were occupied; leaving no 'normal' exits available. The A320 could have been instructed to turn left onto Taxiway Hotel; away from the terminal area. I advised the Local Controller that I thought he should send an MD80 around. The MD80 executed a go-around on his own. The FLM was notified. In the process of reviewing the QAR; the Quality Assurance office determined that the MD80 had passed the landing threshold; without being sent around; while the A320 was still on the runway; resulting in an Operator Error. Recommendation: turn the A320 left onto the open taxi; MAKE SURE the Local Controller heard my recommendation to send the MD80 around; cross the previous 'arrived' aircraft sooner; allowing the exits to be available.




Synopsis: Tower Controller described a go around event when two taxiway exits were blocked and the Local Controller elected not to use a turn off opposite the terminal.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PRC.Tower, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D PRC
ATC / advisory: Tower PRC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the Local 1 position; training in progress. The traffic pattern was getting unwieldy; so I took over and started to clean up the sequence. Aircraft X was number 1 on 3 mile final Runway 3R. Three aircraft were on the downwind; extended to follow Aircraft X. I saw what I thought was Aircraft Y cut out Aircraft X; but realized it was Aircraft X appearing to be on right base Runway 3R; inside the downwind. I re-cleared Aircraft X; and that was when Aircraft Z advised NMAC with Aircraft X.The pilot of Aircraft X should have advised me what he was doing; especially if it was safety related (birds; for instance). I could have at the very least called traffic.




Synopsis: PRC Local Controller observed an aircraft that had been established on final maneuvered on its own to a base leg position on a conflicting course with downwind traffic.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: Hercules (C-130)/L100/382
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on a visual approach to RWY 23 backed up with the ILS in VMC conditions; we were advised we were following a C130 by approximately 5 NM. The approach was stable through minimums. Below 1100 MSL; which is DH for the ILS; we received GPWS warnings about the GS. This is normal as one of the notes on the ILS chart indicate the GS is unusable below 1100 MSL. We entered the low energy regime with intentions to land. As the flare was initiated; we caught either a gust of wind or the wake from the preceding C130; causing us to balloon up approximately 50 ft above the runway with rapidly decreasing airspeed. The FO/PF called for and executed a go around. He set max thrust and I ensured max thrust was set because of our height above the runway; decreasing airspeed; and low kinetic energy. As the airplane started to accelerate; we momentarily had an engine overspeed message. I responded by reducing the thrust setting. Following ATC instructions; we climbed to 4000 on a heading. We were offered our choice of runway. I chose 18R due to our close proximity to that runway and that we would be facing a fuel situation if we did not land soon. We briefed; set up for; and ran the required checklists. As we aligned with the runway; I saw the FO was deviating from the GS. I decided to take the controls at this point. The second approach was stabilized with a normal landing.When we arrived at the gate; I called maintenance to advise them of the engine overspeed and an ITT exceedance during what I said was a go around. Shortly after getting off the phone; I started this ASAP and in describing the event; came to realize it was a balked landing; not a go around.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported executing a low altitude go-around at CLT when the flight ballooned as a result of either a gust of wind or a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
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: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were on the visual to Runway XX in VMC conditions in ZZZ and given a base turn with speed at our discretion. They asked us if we had the airport in sight; which we did; so they cleared us for the visual approach. At this point; we were high; and Tower asked us if we were going to 'make it' down. I said 'yes' and we began to descend; albeit very slowly. I advised my First Officer; the Flying Pilot; to click off the autopilot and hand-fly. We got configured for flaps full and ran the before landing checklist. When we turned final; perhaps around 500 feet AGL; we were still high and got pushed slightly off the centerline by the wind. Then we got a 'HIGH SPEED' aural warning (approximately four or five aural warnings before we were out of the red); reaching 171 knots; which is 6 knots faster than the limitation. While descending; we also got two 'SINK RATES'; one around 40-50' and the other around 30'. The runway was assured; and we touched down in the touchdown zone; clearing Runway XX at Taxiway A.  In retrospect; I should have called for a go around after we turned final; realizing that we were still too high and not stable. As the Pilot Monitoring; it is my duty to alert the Pilot Flying of a situation where I think that a missed approach should be executed. As a Captain; I need to be more proactive in calling for a go around even if it is in an airport with such heavily prohibited areas.




Synopsis: EMB175 Captain reported failure to follow procedure for an unstabilized approach.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CEW.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Utility / Infrastructure
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF CEW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I had just finished my run-up at CEW (Bob Sikes Airport) and was holding short of Runway 35 for departure. Winds were reported out of the north at 5 kts. on the ASOS. Upon reaching the hold short; winds heavily favored Runway 35 (7-10 kts. on windsock out of the north). From my position; I had a clear view of both base and final for [Runway] 35; as well as the left downwind/base and final for [Runway] 17. I scanned the pattern and observed no traffic; I also had not heard any calls over the CTAF since engine start (roughly 6-7 minutes prior). I made my CTAF call announcing I would be taking Runway 35 for departure. Before I started moving; an FBO vehicle made a call announcing that there was an aircraft landing on Runway 17. Soon after; I had a visual on a [light aircraft] in his flare that was previously obscured from the glare of the sun. I never crossed the hold short line; and I thanked the vehicle over frequency; who stated that the traffic had not been making any radio calls. After the aircraft vacated the runway; I made an uneventful departure to the north. Although there was no immediate danger; it was a little too close for comfort. Personally; I have had no experience at an uncontrolled field with an aircraft not making any CTAF calls. I understand that it was within their right to do so; but I believe in this case it made an unsafe condition possible. The pilot must have not have picked up the ASOS; because he landed with a 7-10 kt. tailwind; I believe this added to the confusion. Luckily; the pilot didn't even use half of the 8;000 ft. runway; so if I had continued to line up on the runway; I would have easily been able to see him.  To some degree; I fell victim to an expectancy bias. I will definitely take this as an important lesson moving forward.




Synopsis: Light aircraft pilot reported he was about to take the runway at CEW; a non-towered airport; when a ground observer alerted him to traffic landing opposite direction who was not communicating on CTAF frequency.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SHD.Airport, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF SHD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi-out to Runway 5 we made a radio call stating aircraft type and runway of intended departure. Upon reaching the hold short line we contacted Air Traffic Control for IFR clearance; and waited for release time for takeoff. Hold short line faces approach end of Runway 5; but does not allow pilot to view departure end of runway for on-coming traffic. After copying clearance we switched back to CTAF frequency and continued to monitor the frequency. Upon moving the aircraft we announced taking Runway 5 for takeoff and intended direction of departure. As we took the runway and started takeoff roll we encountered an aircraft on short final for Runway 23. This aircraft had not made any traffic calls and was difficult to see on the hazy background of the sky. Aircraft executed a missed approach and re-entered the pattern for Runway 5. I failed to make an abort decision at the appropriate time and continued with the takeoff and departure. Jeopardizing safety in the process.The cause was inadequate communication used by both aircraft; white aircraft on similar background and poor illumination of landing aircraft to be seen. Inadequate decision making by Captain of departing aircraft and failure to abort the departure. Ways to avoid this would be for all participating aircraft to be communicating effectively and for all aircraft to monitor the frequency and flow of traffic. Other avoidance measure would be to have an ATC facility present at the airport and better positioning of the hold short line for both sides of the runway to be seen.




Synopsis: Pilot reported NMAC during takeoff from a nontowered airport.