elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201412
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was pilot flying on a visual approach to 28C. At about 1000 FT AGL; I noticed that the captain (pilot-monitoring); realized that he had not called the tower controller to obtain landing clearance. The frequency was congested and he was not able to contact tower successfully. At about 100 FT AGL; the captain instructed me to go-around; which I then did. After following ATC go-around instructions; we received a TCAS RA to climb; which I did. We were then eventually cleared for another visual approach to the same runway; and landed uneventfully; this time receiving landing clearance. As pilot monitoring; I should have verified and cross checked that we had received landing clearance earlier in the approach. I now will verify that landing clearance has been received; immediately after the 'before landing checklist' is performed.




Synopsis: When the E-145 flight crew on final approach to ORD realized they hadn't received a landing clearance and were unable to break into the busy tower frequency they initiated a go-around during which they received and responded to a TCAS RA.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 7X
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were level at FL400 when we received an ENG 3 OIL PARAM ABNORM AMBER CAS message. We followed the checklist for ENG 3 OIL PARAM ABNORM and as we were running the checklist; we received the ENG 3 OIL TOO LO PRESS CAS. This had us run the ENG 3 SHUTDOWN checklist; which we performed as we requested clearance to return to ZZZ with no incident.




Synopsis: Falcon 7X First Officer reported having to shut down the #3 engine inflight to resolve CAS messages received for the #3 engine. An air turnback was performed and a precautionary landing was made.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine Air Pneumatic Ducting
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At approximately 13;500 feet during climb-out on the departure; the 'Tail Compartment Temp High' annunciator light illuminated on the Overhead panel; accompanied by the Master Warning Light. The aircraft was leveled at slightly above 13;500 feet and [ATC was advised]. QRH procedures were accomplished and the warning extinguished within two minutes as we began a return to the departure airport. We were initially given a right turn to ZZZ and an initial descent to 8000 ft and were handed off to approach. The Cabin attendants; passengers and company were informed of the nature of the emergency and briefed on the need to return to the departure airport. Further ATC instructions resulted in us departing ZZZ on a 340 degree heading; given a descent to 3;000 feet and visually acquiring the airport at approximately 20 NM; at which time we were cleared for a visual approach to runway 25. On final approach we informed Tower we would be stopping on the runway and would like ARFF to approach the aircraft after coming to a stop. We made contact with ARFF on that same frequency at that time and requested a thermal scan of the tail cone area of the aircraft after we came to a stop. An overweight landing was made on runway 25 at a weight of approximately 142;000 Lb. The landing was uneventful at a minimal sink rate and the aircraft was brought to a stop; since the ARFF equipment was staged in the west end of the 'south pads'. A thermal scan of the empennage of the aircraft confirmed that the tail compartment temperature was not critical and the aircraft was then taxied to [the] gate with one ARFF vehicle accompanying the aircraft to the gate. Passengers were deplaned at the gate. Upon conclusion of the flight; the maintenance discrepancies were entered into the logbook (Tail Compartment Overheat and Overweight landing).




Synopsis: A MD-82 TAIL COMPARTMENT TEMP HI annunciator alerted at about 13;500 FT in the climb so the QRH was completed and the flight returned to the departure airport for an uneventful landing. Thermal imaging on the ground detected no unusual heat.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: IAD.Airport, DC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B PCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were filed by Dispatch for and received clearance for the Shnon2 arrival into IAD; but Dispatch didn't plan fully for the fuel burn. The fuel planning stopped at ELISN; with a burn from ELISN to IAD of 17 LBS. It doesn't matter whether IAD is landing north or south; at ELISN there is a turn north or south to either MIKEJ or MATTC; that shouldn't be that hard to figure out. The actual burn for us from ELISN to IAD was 350 LBS. The total burn figured on the release was 9;825 LBS but the actual burn was 10;415 LBS because of all of the early descents given by ATC that are not figured in by Dispatch. If we would have taken off with min fuel; we would have landed with 1;630 LBS of fuel; less than emergency fuel.




Synopsis: ERJ170 Captain reports the flight planning software used by his company does not consider the entire arrival route and normal delays at large busy airports. The reporter routinely adds extra fuel for these flights.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Photo Shoot / Video
Flight phase: Cruise; Climb; Descent
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Pilot sUAS operating under 107 with a registered sUAS in the Class E airspace SW of an airport. Have filed for the Airspace Waiver Authorization for operation at the location and had not heard back if the application was approved. Spoke with two FAA personnel that were in town that day and requested guidance on how to acquire access to create the video footage for my client. Talked with FAA FDSO Frontline Manger; his colleague; FSS and ATC. Requested to have a NOTAM published for the specific time of operation. One was created. Operation was not over people. The flight occurred during daylight hours and 30 min after sunset.The area of difficulty is the current FAA application process requesting airspace waiver authorization; processing time is too long to meet production company work schedule; and there is no point of emirate contact under current rules! Pilot was monitoring CTAF for traffic; utilized additional 'spotter'; and was in contact with FSS. Under what authorization can this type of operation be conducted within the FAA Airspace frame work? I trusted the NOTAM to be the correct tool for the job. We have to do something to get the job done when the Authorization for Airspace Waiver is none responsive!The two local FAA personnel on the field this day complimented me for having followed the proper channels and done all that I could in the interest of public safety to get the job done. The question I personally have is; what documentation do I have for accepting 'clearance' or 'authorization' to operate legally under Part 107 in the airspace I need to work? ATC? FSS? FAA? I need to know; I need to follow the framework we have in place for our National Airspace Classifications and also get my job done for my client.




Synopsis: UAV pilot requested FAA authorization before a commercial video operation. After an extended delay; the FSS issued a NOTAM about the operation at the pilot's request which was then completed safely.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RKSI.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-11
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower RKSI
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Departed RKSI runway 33L behind a B777. During climb at 2000 MSL we encountered wake turbulence that caused our Aircraft to roll to the right with 30 [degree] bank followed by rapid roll left with 30 [degree] bank and rapid pitch down. First Officer was hand flying during encounter. I called 'stay off rudders' as Aircraft was rolling left and pitching down and took control of Aircraft. I neutralized the controls and about this time we flew out of encounter. Gave Aircraft back to First Officer and continued with flight.


Second narrative: Shortly after takeoff and following the SID (NOPIC1L/Rwy33L) [in trail] of a B777 our aircraft encountered wake turbulence at approximately 2000 AGL. Although no parameters or limitations were exceeded in this encounter; the aircraft did go beyond 30 degrees of bank more than once. As the First Officer; pilot flying; after initially unsuccessfully attempting to level the wings of our aircraft the continued snap rolling thereafter indicated that we were still in the preceding aircraft's wake. Adding a very limited degree of rudder in successive recovery attempts proved unsuccessful as well. I handed the aircraft to the captain for his input and following his attempts to level the wings; the wake turbulence encounter was brought to a safe and successful conclusion. The First Officer reestablished as the pilot flying and the flight continued to destination without further incident. Conclusion: A flight crew should be keenly aware of takeoff/in-flight separation and winds behind a B777. This incident has proven to me that the wake turbulence of a B777 may be more severe than other heavy aircraft.


Synopsis: MD-11F flight crew reported encountering wake turbulence at approximately 200 feet AGL after takeoff from RKSI in trail of a B777.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZSE.ARTCC, WA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 4 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B SEA
ATC / advisory: Center ZSE
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Departure; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the mid-shift; Seattle Approach had been declared ATC Zero for about an hour due to what turned out to be both controllers on duty being locked out of the control room. During this time; Seattle Center assumed Seattle Approach's airspace. During this period; Seattle Tower called on a landline for a release for Aircraft X aircraft because the dial lines were not working apparently. I or my D-Side issued a release to 9000 for the aircraft on the BANGR departure. I just learned that Seattle Tower actually owns a 10 mile radius up to 5000 MSL around the airport so we did not need to issue the release and I talked to and radar identified the aircraft in their airspace without the proper coordination.I would recommend additional training to Seattle Center and Tower on Seattle Approach contingency procedures and fixing the dial lines (103) between Seattle Center and Seattle Tower.




Synopsis: ZSE Controller describes S46 being ATC Zero. ZSE controllers release aircraft off of SEA and find out later that they did not need to release the aircraft because SEA Tower is responsible for 10 miles around SEA.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DWH.Airport, TX
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower DWH
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing roll
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approach in use RNAV-GPS 35L; reporter acting as non-flying instructor for instrument training flight; DWH RWY 35L closed due to standing water from recent heavy rains; RWY lighting at airport believed to be inop due to recent heavy rains. Intention was to side step to RWY 35R approximately 100 yards to parallel RWY 35R which was open. Reminded student that 35R was the RWY in use and observed him to move toward the final for 35R. Then turned attention to other matters and did not notice student lined up for and landed on taxiway Foxtrot which runs the entire length of RWY 35R between 35L and 35R. Foxtrot is a bright; light colored concrete and RWY 35R is a dark brown pavement; difficult to see in dim light created near sunset time and overcast skies. Student turned off the taxiway onto RWY 35R; thinking he was exiting the runway. Believe we were too far from the tower in dim light and without functional airport lights for tower personnel to see what had happened. Were instructed to roll out on 35R to the end and contact ground. Complied.There was no other traffic active on the surface of the airport; so no conflicts were created. Situation obviously caused by poor light; but visibility was easily good enough to have avoided it. Both pilots were experienced and with considerable experience operating from this particular airport.




Synopsis: Small aircraft instructor pilot reported his student landed on DWH Taxiway Foxtrot after being cleared to land on Runway 35R.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MIA.Airport, FL
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Aircraft component: MCP
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This is a fatigue related event that led to a momentary unstable approach configuration on final. This was the sixth day in a row of reserve flying for me. Well over 30 hours of flight/deadhead time in preceding six days.Layover preceding night in LAS. I awoke throughout night by noise next door and above me. This hotel is unusually noisy due to thin walls and loud plumbing. Doors slamming; coughing; flushing toilets interrupted sleep thru the night.Felt somewhat rested next morning at sign in; heavy workload to depart LAS due to weight restrictions and fuel requirements. Numerous altitude changes and deviations due to ride and weather enroute. Fuel upon landing becoming an issue. I felt fatigued prior to descent; saying that it's been a long week and the hotel was inadequate. On final approach; copilot asked me to set missed approach; I did and then inadvertently pushed button which took us out of approach mode and into climb mode. Copilot quickly disengaged auto throttles and AP and hand flew approach. I contribute this 100% to fatigue due to being overworked and staying at a inferior hotel on layover.Fatigue is cumulative and after six days of flying combined by an inadequate hotel for rest it becomes a safety issue. Fatigues onset will come at a critical time and will lead to mistakes. I ill be more vigilant in the future and use the fatigue protections to prevent this. The company needs to maintain a better standard of hotels for layovers to ensure we get adequate sleep. If I have a repeat experience at this hotel on a layover; I will remove myself from the next day's sequence.




Synopsis: A321 Captain experiences a bad over night due to a very noisy hotel. During approach at the end of the next day; the First Officer calls for the missed approach altitude to be set and the Captain inadvertently initiates a climb. Autothrust and autopilot are disconnected and the approach is continued manually.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Passengers in XX3/4 repeatedly removed their mask during flight. Male passenger in XX3 removed his mask twice during the flight and had to be told to put it back on. He also removed it during deplaning. I had to make an announcement and he also put it back on. Passenger in XX4 removed his mask 3 times during the flight. When I first noticed his mask off I asked him to pull it backup and he did. (Gaiter style mask). During takeoff while I was in my jumpseat he removed his mask again. I decided to wait until the chime to ask him to pull it up again. However; it appeared the passenger behind him had asked him to pull his mask back up and he was starting to argue. (I was unable to hear the actual conversation.)  In order to prevent conflict/escalation I got up and told him he needed to put his mask back on. He did. After service; (he did not eat or drink) during trash pick up - I noticed he had his mask under his nose. When he saw me looking at him he pretended to be asleep. I called the pilots and told them I need to issue a notice to the passenger and told them what seat. I went back and handed him the notice and he pulled his mask back up when I 'woke' him. I came back a few minutes later to make sure he was still complying and retrieve the card. He looked shock and made gestures asking me why I had given it to him. I told him that he needed to keep his mask on. He sarcastically pulled it up to his eyes and asked if that was OK. I said yes; took the card and left. There was no additional interaction for the rest of the flight. The Captain called and asked if the issue was resolved and we told him yes.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported passenger misconduct related to COVID-19 mask requirements.