elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
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: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: A300
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [We were] landing [Runway] 36L MEM; visual approach. VFR conditions; winds 080/009. [We had] visual contact with traffic (heavy Airbus - A300) ahead and the field. Visual approach clearance received. Spacing between traffic [was] approximately 3.5 miles. Controller issued two cautions for wake turbulence. Upon crossing runway threshold my aircraft experienced wake turbulence approximately 100 FT above runway. Turbulence [was] not enough to warrant go around. Aircraft rolled approximately 10-15 degrees left and right. Any increase in wake and a go around would have been executed. Minimized spacing caused wake turbulence. Recommend re-evaluate decreased spacing.




Synopsis: Medium Large Transport Captain reported wake vortex encounter on approach behind an A300 that resulted in left and right roll 100 FT AGL.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: EC135
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Contracted Service
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: Inter-hospital transfer. After pick-up and departure weather progressed two hours faster than originally forecast and crew experienced IMC conditions enroute. After coordination with Operations; initial divert was made and coordination for a tail-to-ground transfer approximately 10 minutes into flight as weather was still forecast to be VMC at [destination] for another hour and half. [We then] experienced unforecast icing and snow squall line rapidly approaching from the west that made further VMC flight not possible. After discussion with the crew the pilot identified the first safe point of landing and the aircraft was safely landed onto an alternate unprepared zone; a snow-covered road. Aircraft was secured. Patient transfer was safely executed to complete remainder of the MEDEVAC with the aid of the Fire Dept. No injury to personnel; property; or the aircraft was incurred.




Synopsis: EC135 flight crew reported landing on a public road after encountering ice and snow that made VMC flight impossible.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Once again I was assigned to fly a double duty period in a 24 hour period. I slept for 9 hours prior to my coast to coast flight that departed before mid-morning. After flying approximately 4 hrs to our destination; we are now released and sent to the hotel to try and get rest for our red eye flight. As always; I was unable to rest after I arrived to the hotel; because I was rested from the night before. I laid down several times to try and rest but was unsuccessful. Late afternoon; I self medicated myself to try and sleep for at least a few hours. The alarm went off at a couple of hours before midnight local time. I slept for about 3 hours prior to show time.During the flight I felt extremely fatigued as did the First Officer. I found myself nodding off many times during the flight. I was definitely feeling the effects of fatigue. I feel really guilty calling in fatigue as the company does not have the staffing to cover this flight and the passengers will be affected negatively. This practice has to stop before an accident occurs.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported extreme fatigue during the second duty period in twenty-four hours beginning with an AM transcontinental flight; attempting mid PM rest and finally flying an all night period.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is regarding the new RNAV SIDs at IAH and the phraseology that they are using. I have not had any violations; but I believe that the wording they are using is non-standard and unsafe. There have been some memos regarding this; but I think ATC's phraseology is not quite apropos of Standard English. IAH Departure is using the verbiage; 'Climb via the XYZ SID; except maintain one six thousand feet' expecting us to climb via the SID and comply with all published altitude restrictions. Webster's dictionary defines except as: 'not including; other than; or with the exclusion or exception of.' Therefore; my interpretation of the statement they are issuing is to comply with the lateral and speed portions of the SID; and replace the altitude with the except altitude. Per the definition of 'except' followed by an altitude means 'with the exclusion of' such and such altitude.When I query them they educate me of their expectations of the statement and I now know what they expect.  I just believe that the statement could get crews who are unfamiliar with this into trouble; especially if they attempt to interpret the semantics according to Standard English usage. I believe that the verbiage should be 'climb via the XYZ SID; [maintain] XX thousand.'




Synopsis: An ERJ Captain reported his belief that IAH ATC's phraseology when clearing flights to specific altitudes using 'climb via' on the new RNAV SIDs is imprecise and may lead to flights failing to comply with intervening crossing restrictions.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb; Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Transport
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I departed ZZZ; informing the Tower Controller that I would be doing flight training over [the city] at 3500 ft. and below and that I would remain on his frequency. While performing simulated engine-out training; ZZZ Tower made us aware of Aircraft Y at 1;500 ft. He also advised Aircraft Y; Aircraft Y on my ADS-B; of our presence and altitude -1;000 ft. - and the pilot said he had us in sight. I was watching him on my iPad using ForeFlight. When the traffic was called; I was concluding the engine-out glide; as the student had successfully put the aircraft in a position to land on the grass strip. At 1;000 ft.; I had the student initiate a climb and had him turn away from the path of Aircraft Y. As we climbed to 1;200 feet; Aircraft Y turned to cross over us. I stopped the climb and initiated another turn away from the present track of Aircraft Y. Again; Aircraft Y turned so that he would again go over the top of us and clear by only 200 to 300 ft. I initiated a 180-degree reversal and descended to 1;000 ft.I don't understand why; if this aircraft had me in sight; that he would turn to cross over the top of me several times with minimal clearance. I assumed he was turning to go to ZZZ. He could have just flown west for a mile before initiating his turn; avoiding any hint of a conflict. If my aircraft had TCAS; that would have been a multiple-RA situation. I assume that the Aircraft Y pilot was taking shortcuts to hurry his flight. But the conflict was unacceptable.




Synopsis: Flight Instructor reported an NMAC while conducting training maneuvers.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Nose Gear Tire
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Paperwork Audit
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: At night; January 2012; I was tasked with a Work Card; revision dated December 2011; to complete on a      B757-200 aircraft. The Work Card is to inspect the Nose Gear Tire Spin Down Brake pads for cracking; no cracks were found and I signed the Check by Blocks; as is normally done for most Line Maintenance Work Cards. This particular card has an 'I' in the Check by Blocks for Steps-3 and -4 notating a Quality Control (Q/C) sign-off.I believe this clerical error happened because: 1). This Work Card should be intended for Heavy Maintenance Checks that have QC at their disposal. 2). This Work Card is formatted very similar to other Line Maintenance Cards that have the Check by Block in the same place this card has; and this card also says Check by in the block; just as other Line Maintenance Cards.  I would recommend in the future; that If Line Maintenance is to do work cards with QC sign-offs; that there should be a very bold and unmistakeable notation where they are to sign; so a non-QC Mechanic will know not to sign it.




Synopsis: A Line Mechanic reports he inadvertently signed-off the Inspection block on a Work Card for the Nose Gear Tire Spin Down Brake pads on a B757-200 aircraft.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airport
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: CLT has an inaccurate taxi diagram; coming in to ramp on November taxiway shows E13 to the right of N taxiway when E13 is actually to the left of November taxiway; which created some confusion. We failed to contact ramp immediately when entering their area of responsibility. We contacted the ramp at spot 9 after entering the ramp area at E13.


Second narrative: Landed on runway 36L and exited W7. Towered instruction; 'Taxi November and hold short 36 Center.' Followed by; 'Cross 36 Center; left on Echo and enter ramp on Echo 13.' The chart 10-9 is incorrect. Echo 13 along with many other points are labeled incorrectly. Aircraft was stopped before seeing Echo 13 taxi sign to the left; just the opposite of the chart. Entered ramp at Echo 13 and due to the confusion there was a delay contacting ramp to verify aircraft position on the 10-9 chart with the external ramp signs. Once position was assured called ramp for taxi to gate. Ramp informed us we were supposed to call prior to entering ramp as noted on 10-9B. Taxi was briefed as part of the brief.NOTAMs are posted but it is still confusing. Just being aware makes a difference. Maybe change the wording of the NOTAMs. Also could have stopped and asked ground for clarification.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that CLT has an inaccurate taxiway signage and diagram.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A C750 [was] en route at FL470. The C750 keyed up on frequency with a request during a period of frequency congestion. I answered 1 or 2 other aircraft and then responded to the C750. The C750 calmly requested a descent to FL430 and did not indicate any distress. After being cleared to descend to FL430; the aircraft was handed off and shipped to the next sector. The aircraft's beacon code was indicating an emergency a couple of minutes later and was unresponsive to transmitters from my frequency and descending rapidly. It was determined after the aircraft's safe landing along with rapid depressurization; the aircraft had deteriorated transmission capability. The Tower reported having difficulty hearing the aircraft while it was in the pattern. A timely report from pilots regarding equipment malfunctions.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller noted the rapid descent of an aircraft squawking emergency.  The reporter noted pilots should be more forth coming with information to ATC as to their status.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Jet Ranger All Series Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Engine chip light illuminated under normal cruise flight power settings for ambient conditions causing the pilot to land as soon as possible without incident. No exceedances had previously been recorded on the Rolls-Royce turbine engine and it had met all periodic maintenance requirements. Post flight inspection of the 2 engine chip detectors revealed extensive metal chips resulting in engine replacement. To prevent a recurrence the root cause of the engine chips should be investigated/current maintenance schedule should be evaluated.




Synopsis: Bell 407 pilot reported landing as soon as possible after receiving an engine chip light in cruise flight.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Manuals; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We called dispatch to get performance numbers per MEL. Dispatch wanted us to get numbers from ACARS but there is no provision for this per the Mel. There seemed to be a bunch of ambiguity as to what exactly we were looking for because we needed to take a penalty for engine only anti-ice on and ACARS does not allow for this from a pilot perspective on the takeoff conditions pages of the ACARS menu most notably page 2/2. My captain was talking to dispatch and not getting what's required per MEL so I called Maintenance and got no answer and I left a message after 2 tries. I was looking for expediency since we had closed door so we did not take a delay. I then called Mr. X and he answered and went directly to helping us. He did some coordination with maintenance control and our dispatcher and finally with more information we went with numbers from ACARS performance data. This was still not per the Mel but we were confident it was safe and departed without further incident.The MEL needs adjustment if we are allowed to use ACARS data. Maybe adding the note to allow for verbal numbers or ACARS numbers after conferring with dispatcher. Have the Mel tell us what we should see in RMKS section of ACARS performance data if it becomes an option because to us the remarks we finally got in the end didn't mean a whole lot to us until Mr. X explained. Give training to dispatch to follow dispatch procedures per Mel and not change procedures to suit their needs.




Synopsis: ERJ170 First Officer reported difficulty getting performance numbers to comply with MEL which states that the numbers are to be supplied by Dispatch but Dispatch stated the ACARS numbers are to be used.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
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: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Had a BLEED 1 LEAK EICAS. Completed QRH. Proceeded on flight plan route. Encountered icing conditions and requested lower altitude. Center was unable to clear us to a lower altitude. I declared an emergency and descended to flight level 210 to remain clear of icing conditions.Having the bleed leak after takeoff caused us to loose our icing protection. Airspace was congested and we were unable to get an ATC clearance to a lower altitude.I was not expecting any icing conditions. We had flown this route prior to our return to the previous airport. No icing reports for the area were effective at time. The only way to avoid what happened would be to fly at a low enough altitude where the temperature would not be low enough for icing to occur.




Synopsis: An ERJ-190 EICAS alerted BLEED 1 LEAK after takeoff so the crew completed the QRH but at cruise altitude unexpected icing conditions were encountered so an emergency was declared and a descent out of icing conditions followed.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 10
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flying IFR at 2;000 feet I incorrectly entered the approach information for the RNAV GPS Runway X approach to ZZZ and consequently the aircraft deviated from that depicted on the approach plate for the GPS approach.   My flying time has been greatly reduced since the COVID-19 pandemic and I entered incorrect information in the GPS by mistake.  I have since taken a course for 'Rusty Pilots' on the internet in an attempt to stay adequate and I have also scheduled my 'Flight Review' with an instructor.  I think the reason for the mistake in entering the GPS information was due to greatly reduced flying time experience since COVID-19.




Synopsis: GA pilot reported a track heading deviation after entering incorrect information in the GPS and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.