elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PHL; Class E PHL
ATC / advisory: TRACON PHL
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: An A319 on a downwind for 27R encountered a VFR aircraft converging towards his plane at a high speed. Traffic was exchanged. The flight crew responded to an RA as traffic was called. The A319 descended as the VFR aircraft flew over him. The A319 was exiting the Class Bravo. If the Class Bravo was extended; this VFR aircraft would have to speak with ATC.


Second narrative: Upon arrival in PHL we were given a clearance to descend to 4;000 FT. At 4;100 FT we received a TA; I noticed the altitude on the TA was at our clearance altitude and what seemed to be five to eight miles. I shifted my attention outside and acquired the traffic. I immediately instructed the co-pilot to descend; which he did; and a moment later we received a RA to descend. The traffic passed overhead at what seemed to be 300 to 400 FT. We were on an extended downwind and had just left the TCA; on a holiday weekend. The traffic was operating VFR; and not in radio contact with Approach Control; and at the wrong altitude for his direction of flight. Expand PHL Class B.


Synopsis: PHL Controller described a TCAS RA event involving an Air Carrier on downwind for Runway 27R and issued VFR traffic; both aircraft outside the Class B; the reporter suggesting expansion of the PHL Class B.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: When departing Runway 24 at TEB; we were cleared for the RUUDY 4 Departure. The Departure was a mandatory altitude of 1;500 FT MSL at WENTZ. Before reaching WENTZ; there is an unnamed dogleg intersection. When passing the dogleg; the aircraft began a programmed turn. We confused the dogleg intersection for WENTZ and began a climb to 2;000 FT MSL (which is the altitude at TASCA). We were still about a mile and a half from WENTZ. The flying pilot realized the error at the same time ATC noticed that the climb began early. ATC then cleared us to 6;000 FT. Better monitoring of the FMS and multifunction display would help prevent a problem like this one. Also; 'naming' the dogleg intersection would help prevent confusion.




Synopsis: A CE560XL departed on the TEB RUUDY 4. At the dogleg turn before WENTZ; the crew mentally connected the turn and climb so continued toward 2;000 FT early. ATC then cleared the flight to 6;000 FT.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About 1.5 hours into my flight at FL230; and into my descent; I started feeling an urge to sleep.  I was amusing myself texting and communicating and flying but nonetheless; I started to feel very; very tired.  Prior to the flight; I felt fine.  I think I slept my usual 7 hours of sleep the night before.  I moved my COVID-19 face mask aside and drank some water.  That helped a little bit.  But upon putting the face mask back on my face; the feeling came back and I caught myself drifting.  Then I realized...it was my COVID-19 MASK!  I removed the mask and felt fine the rest of the flight.  I didn't have a pulse oxymeter handy but I wish I did.  I think I was inhaling CO2 instead of oxygen.  COVID strikes again!




Synopsis: Pilot reported feeling sleepy while flying and suspected that it was the COVID-19 mask that was causing the problem. The pilot removed the mask and felt fine afterward.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All Phases
Aircraft component: Drinkable/Waste Water Syst
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; In-flight; Routine Inspection; Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Walking down the jet bridge my crew and I were met by the inbound crew who informed us that the aircraft did not have running water in both main cabin bathrooms. They were informed by Maintenance that the aircraft was to be taken out of service when it reached ZZZ; so they were surprised to see the flight going immediately back out. In light of the recent spread of COVID-19; I was concerned and uncomfortable to be working on an aircraft in which main cabin passengers would not be able to wash their hands. I informed the Captain and the Gate Supervisor that we were uncomfortable with this situation. Supervisor informed me she was calling the Tower and also asked the cleaners to bring hand sanitizer. No one attempted to discuss the situation any further with me; and boarding began. We departed for ZZZ1 with one working sink. While I understand on-time performance is very important; I think protecting customers and crewmembers should be of higher priority. We've been told repeatedly that the best thing to prevent the spread of COVID-19 is to wash your hands with soap and water. The water should have been fixed; or another aircraft should have been substituted.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported the aircraft departed with one working lavatory sink which impacted the ability of crew and passengers to wash their hands to help prevent the spread of COVID-19.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We had just diverted to CLE and we were rushing to continue onto our filed destination. After an aircraft swap we were setting up the aircraft for departure. Departing CLE we were filed on the OBRLN 4 Departure; at the gate I set 3000 feet for the initial altitude after looking quickly at the chart. On initial climb out the FO called ATC at reported leaving altitude for 3;000 feet. ATC then cleared us to 10;000 feet. Then she asked us why we were going to 3000 feet and not 5000 feet for the initial altitude. I looked at the chart and realized that 3000 feet was for Willoughs Lost Nation Man Airport and Hopkins was 5000. The 3000 was in a much bigger box and the 5000 was in a smaller box. She said it happens a lot on this departure and not to worry about but asked us why we thought it was 3000 and not 5000. I explained to her about the size of the box and the altitude in there. She explained that we should have the chart changed then so this error doesn't continue to happen.Threats: The altitude box for 3000 is bigger than the 5000 box for CLE.Errors: Not reading the chart carefully.In the future I will verify that the initial altitude is set for the correct airport. I also highlighted the altitude on this chart for future use. To eliminate confusion the departures should be for one single airport not multiple airports.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported climbing to 3000 feet instead of the correct 5000 feet while on climb out from CLE on the OBRLN 4 SID due to a confusing note on the Jeppesen chart.
Date: 202106
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MCO.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: Tower MCO
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach on the ILS for 18R at 1;500 feet we passed a drone hovering about 50-100 feet off the left side of the aircraft. We did not have to deviate to avoid it; but it was close by. It was black and white with four propellers. It did not move over as we went by. It just hovered in the same spot. We notified ATC tower controller. Upon landing the controller asked us more in depth questions about the drone. Being on localizer and glide slope was key here because a deviation to the left may have hit the drone. Suggestions: Not sure what to do to stop this action; except for strict enforcement of the law when these operators are caught. Had I been left of course a bit a half dot; this could have been worse.




Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew on an established ILS approach noticed they flew past a UAS on the left side of their aircraft. Crew notified ATC.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Distribution System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: When the flight crew arrived at the aircraft; ground crew had already connected ground air hose to provide heat. The ground air was only blowing cold outside air; so I had it removed. Crew continued to prep flight as per normal and began boarding process. Boarding was taking a while; so I elected to start the APU to provide heat to the passengers already on board. This was accomplished as per normal and APU Bleed was selected ON after 2 minutes. A few minutes (perhaps 3-5) after selecting the APU Bleed ON; I began to notice an unpleasant odor; similar to that of exhaust; coming from the vents. The bleed system then automatically took itself offline (this was detected by the ceasing of airflow and sound of air passing through vents). The Flight Attendant then came to the flight deck and advised me that there was some smoke entering the cabin through the vents. When I looked back; I could see a light haze in the rear of the cabin. This all happened within 60 seconds or less. I shutdown the APU; directed the Flight Attendant to advise the rampers that we needed to deplane the aircraft; and directed the First Officer to inspect the rear of the aircraft for any signs of fire or smoke at the rear of the airplane or in the inspection compartments under the tail (he found none). I made a PA announcement to the passengers and reviewed the Emergency/Abnormal checklist to ensure I was not neglecting to perform any other tasks. The passengers were deplaned; I wrote up the discrepancy and called Dispatch. By this point the smoke had already started to dissipate. As a last precaution; I directed the First Officer to call Ground Control and have a fire truck sent to our gate; just in case there was an unknown fire.




Synopsis: During preflight on a cold morning; a DHC8-300 cabin filled with smoke after the APU and air conditioning were selected ON; so the passengers were deplaned and Maintenance was called.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: IKV.Airport, IA
Weather elements / visibility: 9
Aircraft: SR22
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On short final to IKV with clear for visual when ATC came on back up radio. I was already on CTAF to land. ATC said I was too low and area was 4000 MEA. I was 2000 ft above the glide path for runway 18 preparing to land. Full flaps and at 9 pct power on steep descent to runway. ATC wanted me to write down a phone number. The issue of clearance needed to be resolved on the ground and I refused to write numbers during a landing. I went to the CTAF and landed. Then called ATC. They explained they did not clear me for the visual. I understood that I was cleared.




Synopsis: Pilot reported cleared for a visual approach; while Approach Control advised pilot they were not cleared for the approach.
Date: 202109
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight; Routine Inspection
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I have been dealing with this issue with ZZZ for some weeks now they continue to stage cabin supplies using the AOG (Aircraft on Ground) code instead of the cabin code. I've sent several emails and have spoken with the ZZZ Cargo Supervisor and told them the correct way to stage their cabin supplies I've even emailed them DSTG's (Departure Staging Guide) from ZZZ1 and ZZZZ showing the correct way to stage the items but she refuses to use the correct code; so now I'm filing a report because this needs to stop. Not only is it wrong the ramp in ZZZ is looking for an AOG and they are calling to advise the item isn't AOG it is cabin supplies. I don't know if this is report worthy or not but we need to correct this and make sure ZZZ is using the appropriate code for cabin supplies and that code isn't AOG.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Ground Personnel reported a recurring practice of incorrect Hazmat cargo coding in the Load Planning program.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 150
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying; Trainee
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Flying solo cross country. Lost electrical and radio contact 20 miles southeast of my departure airport. Put squawk at 7600. Flew normal approach with exception of tipping the wings toward Tower to let them know emergency situation. Before turning final on left base for 17R; I looked to see if I could enter the pattern safely. Made judgment that commercial jet was far enough away that his landing would not be altered. Saw jet go back up and around after I turned final so Tower clearly thought it was too close. Gusty conditions and lack of flaps due to electrical failure prevented a good set up for landing. At 10 FT I powered up and made a closed traffic right turn for second landing attempt. Fuel gauges were showing empty (false reading due to electrical failure); so I was committed to a successful landing. Landed safely on 17R and called Tower as soon as I got to FBO.




Synopsis: A C150 lost electrical power while a student pilot flew a cross country. He returned to the departure airport where a conflict developed with an air carrier and he executed a go around because of an unstabilized approach.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Weather elements / visibility: Clear
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Jet Blast
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: As we were in the flare on Runway 29 at EWR with power at idle or being reduced towards idle; maybe 10-20 ft off the ground;  we were hit by jet blast from a departing heavy aircraft on the intersecting Runway; 22R. EWR was landing 29 and departing aircraft from [Runway] 22R at intersection [Taxiway] W or Y. The aircraft weather vane into the jet blast; the aircraft was pushed right of center line; we experienced moderate turbulence; and the aircraft rolled slightly to the right. I was able to control the aircraft as if [it was] landing in a crosswind and land safely. The aircraft never got into an unsafe situation. Needless to say; this caught us completely off guard. Maybe EWR needs to reevaluate this practice when heavy aircraft are departing. In the landing flare is not a great time to get hit with jet blast. Crews should also be aware of this hazard.


Second narrative: As we were in the flare on Runway 29 at EWR with power at idle or being reduced towards idle; maybe 10-20 ft off the ground;  we were hit by jet blast from a departing heavy aircraft on the intersecting runway; 22R. EWR was landing [Runway] 29 and departing aircraft from [Runway] 22R at intersection [Taxiway] W or Y. The aircraft weather vane into the jet blast; the aircraft was pushed right of center line; we experienced moderate turbulence; and the aircraft rolled slightly to the right. I was able to control the aircraft as if landing in a crosswind and land safely. The aircraft never got into an unsafe situation. Needless to say; this caught us completely off guard. Maybe EWR needs to reevaluate this practice when heavy aircraft are departing. in the landing flare is not a great time to get hit with jet blast. Crews should also be aware of this hazard.


Synopsis: Flight Crew while landing is hit by jet blast from departing heavy aircraft .