elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence; 4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Near thunderstorms; encountered moderate to severe turbulence; loss of auto pilot and electric trim; avionics heading flag; alternator failure. This lead to diversion from flight plan. After identifying and correcting failed items; resumed normal flight with no further incidences.


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


Synopsis: BE-36 Pilot reported encountering moderate to severe turbulence; loss of autopilot and alternator failure. Reported successful diversion.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: WDG.Airport, OK
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Observer
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Driving from Garber; OK to Enid; OK I noticed that about 20+ 400 ft tall windmills in that windfarm were unlight on a very dark night. This windfarm is 6 or 7 miles north of WDG and is on the sectional.  I called flight service and was forwarded to flight safety and was told that only the owner or manager could report that the lights don't work. A local farmer told me that the lights have never worked. WHAT! So a safety issue must be initiated by the owner who is not going to tattle on themselves. No NOTAM has been issued for this situation.




Synopsis: A pilot driving between Garber; OK and Enid; OK at night noticed a turbine windfarm with numerous unlit turbines in excess of 200 FT.
Date: 201704
Location: JFK.Airport, NY
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B NYC
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During ILS Runway 31R approach at JFK airport; 3000 ft; level and localizer captured; glideslope armed; we were authorized by ATC to land on 31R as fourth [in line behind a] B747 which was five miles [in front of] us. [ATC] also requested 170 kts until ZULAB; therefore we set flaps 10 and speed was reduced to keep 5 and 7 miles [in trail] due to wake turbulence.Approximately 2 miles before MALDE; suddenly the roll angle [increased to] 35 degrees caused by wake turbulence. Autopilot was disengaged and 'Bank Angle' was [heard] then we lost 200 ft. Recovery maneuver was performed; and the localizer was recovered; [about] 2 miles [from] ZULAB. We told ATC about the event. [They told] us that we could continue with the approach.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to JFK in trail of a B747.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We arrived and awaited a gate. There was several swaps of the gate sent to us via ACARS. We were a 777-200 I don't think whoever was sending us the gate was aware we were a 200. We waited for fifteen minutes for a 777-300 to push then the same ramp crew that pushed the 777-300 accepted our aircraft. We were hand marshaled to the gate with a nose guide man and two wing walkers. We flashed the light and accepted guidance. I stopped the aircraft exactly as directed and shutdown the aircraft. The only problem was the jetway driver abandoned the jetway in fear of getting hit. And then we find out the marshaler parked us on the 777-300 line 20 feet forward of the 777-200 line.We came within inches of hitting the engine nacelle to the jet bridge. Someone is going to get hurt badly; with these kind of mistakes. These wing walkers are worthless if no one is paying attention. Obviously neither of the two caught the mistake of the marshaler (guide man) either.




Synopsis: B777-200 Captain reported being marshaled into a gate and stopped on the -300 mark; narrowly missing engine contact with the jetway.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Piper Single Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As part of my job as a CFI for a local flight school; I was looking to add tailwheel instruction to my list of instruction services I provide. I have about 15 total tailwheel hours; but very little recent experience. In order to improve proficiency; I went up with an instructor the day before the ground loop to get tailwheel current and get some additional training. We flew for an hour and did four full stop landings on the airfield's grass runway; and all were straight; and no issues came up during any of these landings that would suggest I needed additional training. On the day of the ground loop; the winds had shifted to be about 8 knots directly down the asphalt runway so I chose to use that one rather than the grass which would have had a 90-degree crosswind. During my first approach; I made a low pass to verify the sight picture in my mind and double check any wind correction that may need to be done. I executed a go around and came around for another uneventful approach to a planned 3-point landing. After a smooth touchdown with the airplane rolling down the runway; a gust lifted the right wing and a yaw to the left. My corrective actions did not prevent the airplane from ground looping. Upon reflection; there was a moment where I should have applied power to try to stop the yaw and execute a go-around. However; I believe my ego got in the way since I've been flying more than I ever have that I could 'save' the landing despite teaching my students to default to a go-around when things aren't looking right. My overconfidence in my skills; combined with ego resulted in me trying to save the rollout rather than going around. I also believe more than an hour of recurrent training prior to flying a tailwheel airplane is required; even though I have been flying a lot lately.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor flying a PA-16 aircraft reports ground loop on landing rollout.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After takeoff out of HPN PM contacted departure. Checked in with climbing out of 2000 for 3000. ATC responded with roger; climb maintain 12000. PM responded climb maintain 12000. 12000 was selected in the altitude alerter. ATC was busy. ATC asked who is off HPN. We did not respond because we already talked to ATC and there was another aircraft behind us for takeoff. So we figured it was the other aircraft. ATC again asked who's off HPN. We guessed maybe he was referring to us. We answered [we were]. He stated he wanted us on 120.8. PM switched to 120.8 and checked in. PM questioned the 12000 feet and ATC stated 'no I want you at 3000'. I observed an altitude of 3600. Turned auto pilot off and descended to 3000. PM stated altitude reached 3800 before we started our descent. I also observed the MFD TCAS and noticed there were no aircraft within 10 miles of our position. We leveled off at 3000. The next communication from ATC was climb maintain 7000 turn left to heading 270. Then ATC handed us off to the next NY departure controller. After that ATC never said a word about the altitude question. Threats; NY busy airspace. ATC simulcasting on different frequencies. ACARS not working at gate and had to do manual weight and balance form. 28 minutes from door close to takeoff. Maybe rushing a little bit.Possible error; the paper that had our clearance on it fell on the floor on taxi out. Which would have been double checked on the briefing. The departure frequency was 120.8. Which is not the normal departure frequency for the HPN 5 departure. 120.8 is the second frequency listed on the HPN 5 departure. We used the first frequency listed on the plate. I learned if I don't hear a call sign with an altitude change I will not accept the altitude change.


Second narrative: There was a mix up in departure freqs from what was on the assigned departure chart and what was assigned. This should have been verified prior to departure.


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported an altitude deviation stemming from ATC communication confusion.
Date: 201906
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We arrived at ZZZ and were advised that we had been swapped to an aircraft that just finished maintenance. We went through the terminal to the new gate and after ID's were checked; proceeded to the airplane. The door was closed which is normal for a significant amount of first departures so I looked through the viewing port verified no flag was present and opened the door. After opening the door a mechanic that was inside the airplane asked why I opened it they were running tests including something with the pressurization and that I could have been hurt. I asked him why he didn't put the flag over the window and his response was that isn't their procedure. I had no way to see inside the flight deck and had no reason to believe someone was on the aircraft because I was told maintenance was finished with it by the agents.




Synopsis: Flight Crew arriving at airplane parked at gate; was not informed that maintenance was being accomplished.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part

Narrative: Inside of 10 nm from PIRAT we were given holding as published; we were already at 250 knots. So we were approximately 1min 30sec from the hold fix. The FMC is programmed with the incorrect hold information. I have not been trained on the ipad in a method to find the holding pattern information. I was able to find it on the US low 3/4 and eventually self-taught to locate it on the ipad. We made a right turn into the hold per the FMC and then queried the controller on the correct holding information. We used heading select to get the correct holding pattern established and were eventually able to program the FMC correctly. The PIRAT holding information used to be on the Area-1 chart but is no longer in our publications.




Synopsis: B-747 crew; after checking enroute charts and querying ATC; discovered that the holding pattern in their FMC was incorrect. Crew used manual heading to enter the holding pattern and iPad information to reprogram the FMC. Crew mentioned a lack of training in locating holding data in the iPad.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SCK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Single Engine Turboprop Undifferentiated
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class D SCK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was under instruction for an annual re-currency. We were conducting a missed approach off of GPS 29R under visual conditions. My instructor simulated a rollback. NorCal asked us to turn to 260 which we acknowledged. Our speed had slowed; and possibly we lost some altitude while I was bringing the power back up using the emergency control toggle for the fuel control unit. As we were rolling to 260; an aircraft passed directly under us very closely. The aircraft was going faster than us at the time.I am not certain if the aircraft had us visually; perhaps this is what the NorCal controller was relying on. I believe we were not provided with adequate separation. I believe that we (the aircraft and my airplane) should have been given instruction to provide a larger degree of separation. One contributing factor could have been that we had slowed our airspeed during the simulated engine rollback maneuver. This was not communicated to ATC.




Synopsis: A single engine turboprop pilot reported a near-mid-air-collision while conducting a practice engine power loss during a missed approach.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Aircraft: A330
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Upon taxi in; the Captain turned the engine off. We held on the tarmac for a gate. The smell of fumes overwhelmed the area by my jumpseat 3L and 4L. I was coughing and my eyes and nose were burning. I immediately left my jumpseat to reach clean air. The G flight attendant left his jumpseat as well. The H flight attendant and I had to cover our eyes and nose because the odor was burning our throats and noses. The A flight Attendant called the Captain and he stated; 'I turned the APU on as soon as I turned off the engine; I am supposed to wait 30 seconds'. If so; he did not follow procedure. Passengers were also noticing a strong odor.




Synopsis: A330 Flight Attendant reported strong fumes in the cabin on taxi in.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the Captain on Aircraft X.  During preflight FA (Flight Attendant) discovered that we needed 4 survival kits onboard but we had none.  After consulting [the] manual I discovered that non sharklet; A319 aircraft were indeed required to have 2 survival kits in front and 2 in back.  Maintenance was called.  Maintenance informed us that they were not required for this aircraft and we departed for ZZZ1.  In ZZZ1 a FA supervisor showed up and we re-consulted everything and decided to call Maintenance again.  They came up with a paper that showed that only aircraft XX [through] YY required survival kits.  We departed for ZZZ.  Someones paperwork is wrong and I suspect that it is Flight Ops and the Flight Attendants and not Maintenance. Sync our paperwork with Maintenance.




Synopsis: Flight Crew flying A319 aircraft discover a Manual discrepancy pertaining to the number of required survival kits on board.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZMA.ARTCC, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZMA; Special Use R2901
ATC / advisory: Center ZMA
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: After checking with Orlando approach to see which restricted areas to the south were active today. I diverted the student to 2RR. We proceeded southbound and remained east of all restricted areas. The student preformed a landing at 2RR. On climb out of 2RR and proceeding due north and remaining east of all restricted areas I called Miami Center for flight following back to ISM. The controller informed me that we were in active restricted airspace. However I confirmed my location via G1000 based avionics and ForeFlight EFB Geo referenced sectional charts to be well east of all restricted area. The air traffic controller then proceeded to describe an airspace that was not depicted on any of our sectionals or chart. He was describing a restricted airspace directly above 2RR which is nowhere depicted on any charts. We proceeded VFR with him and went eastbound out of the airspace that we had no depiction of. We then proceeded northbound. I think that there may be some restricted airspace that is not depicted on sectional charts yet ATC depicts on their chart. This could be a discrepancy and continue to happen. I suggest that the charting of the R2901 restricted airspace around 2RR be investigated and compare the sectional chart to the charting that ATC is using.




Synopsis: Instructor pilot reported being advised by ATC of an airspace violation and expressed concern that the restricted airspace was neither displayed on the G1000 avionics nor the electronic sectional chart.