elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: SJC.Airport, CA
Aircraft: MD-90 Series (DC-9-90) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: Tower SJC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Runway 12R/L in use. Ceiling overcast at 3;700 feet with 20 knot headwinds on the field. No aircraft in the airspace when I took a hand off on Air Carrier X on the downwind. Other duties distracted me from the scope and was not actively watching Air Carrier X make his approach. He was the only aircraft I was working at the time. After a few minutes; I went back to my RADAR scope and found the Air Carrier X data tag in an odd spot about 2 miles north of final; 11 miles northwest of the field; in what appeared to be a turn back to the finals. He appeared a bit low (2;000 feet) and his data tag showed he was assigned the left runway when all of our arrivals are to be sequenced for the right unless coordinated. Air Carrier X then checked on for Runway 12R as NCT was calling on the shout line. I chose to ignore the shout line and answer Air Carrier X with a landing clearance for Runway 12R. I then checked in with the NCT shout line and he advised me Air Carrier X was lined up for the wrong airport (Moffett field). I immediately advised Air Carrier X of this and gave him instructions for Runway 12R at SJC. It appears that once Air Carrier X reported the airport in sight the TRACON Controller issued a visual clearance without insuring the aircraft was turning onto the proper final. This event occurs several times every winter in bad weather when we work on Runway 12 operation. Perhaps a stronger awareness from the TRACON in these types of situations is warranted.




Synopsis: SJC Controller described a coordinated Visual Approach to Runway 12R that was noticeably off course; NCT advised the aircraft appeared to making the approach to Moffett.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PDK.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Windshear; Rain; Turbulence; 3
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Challenger CL604
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: While on the arrival into PDK we were vectoring around heavy rain and thunderstorms. The Approach Controller tried several times to fly us directly into level 3-4 rain cells. The Controller said he wasn't showing anything on his RADAR and continued in an aggressive manner to turn us directly into the cells we both could see and were showing on our RADAR. In his frustration; the Controller turned us 180 degrees from our airport and told us to 'sort out whatever we were seeing'. We were then given another frequency of another Controller who not only saw the same weather; but actually helped us navigate through it. After many turns and deviations we were told to contact [our previous frequency] again; we did and the original Controller was back again with us. He then asked what our speed was and we replied 245 KTS indicated. He advised us we were in Class B airspace and to slow to 200 KTS. We complied and shortly came out of the other side of the weather front and landed at PDK without further incident. In hindsight we should have reverenced the terminal airspace chart when clearing the thunderstorm threat.




Synopsis: Corporate jet inbound to PDK voiced concern regarding the questionable ATC handling provided by one ZTL Controller with respect to weather avoidance.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While in the downwind for runway 24R in LAX; we were sequenced behind a 747. We were provided 7 miles of separation from the traffic. While descending through 6;000 feet we encountered wake turbulence. The aircraft rolled right; then left; then right over a 10-15 second period. I do not know what the bank or pitch angles were; but we heard 'BANK ANGLE' from the aircraft. The captain; who was the pilot flying; provided full aileron control inputs in both directions to the stops; and in both cases the aircraft continued to bank in the direction opposite of the aileron correction. The wake turbulence was; in a word; severe. We asked for; and received; an altitude above where the 747 leveled off; and a heading off the SMO 068 radial. We landed uneventfully and wrote the aircraft up for severe turbulence; whereupon maintenance performed a successful inspection of the aircraft; and we continued to operate the aircraft for the remainder of the day. The controller in this case provided more than adequate separation; and I believe the wake turbulence encounter was due to a fluke of atmospheric conditions. Put simply; we should have never flown through the 747's wake.The captain; as pilot flying; performed a flawless; textbook; wake turbulence recovery. The event; and recovery; mirrored perfectly that which we see in the simulator.




Synopsis: EMB-175 First Officer reported encountering 'severe' wake turbulence seven miles in trail of a B747 on a visual approach to LAX.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ICT.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower ICT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was turning final on Runway 14 at ICT when I noticed a yellow speck below the airplane on the left hand side. As the object came closer I realized it was a drone and it was approximately 100-200ft below the aircraft. I was able to see that on all four sides of it; it had propeller blades letting me know that it was a drone. I didn't have to make any maneuvers to avoid the drone and since I was fully configured and still on a stable approach I made the decision to continue and let ATC know what I encountered.




Synopsis: Captain reported an NMAC with a UAV on approach to ICT.
Date: 201509
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: ACARS
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I released [the flight]. I briefed the captain on the route; weather and circumstances for the flight. The flight departed at XA:17 and proceeded normally. At XA:54 I received an ACARS from the flight stating: 'ENG FAIL LDG ZZZ'; I responded at XA:55 'COPY ENG FAIL RETURNING ZZZ.'I received a SATCOM call with the captain and we discussed the situation. He told me that they heard a loud bang and vibration; the oil pressure went to zero and they were running the severe damage checklist. The crew was dumping fuel and the cockpit was very busy with the crew running procedures. I assured the captain that I would rerelease the flight and get him the landing numbers.The release was complete at XB:02. I transmitted the Landing Report with the go around information at XB:08. I then ran the numbers for the required landing distance and sent two messages to the crew:1) XB:12: REQUIRED LANDING DIST WITH ONE ENG INOP 20 DEG FLAPS 4427 FT2) XB:14: ONE ENG REQUIRED LANDING DIST WITH FLAPS 30 - 4002 FTThe flight was ON at XB33 and IN at XC:21. The times did not transmit. We had to confirm with ZZZ ops that the aircraft was on the ground. I sent a message to the crew at XB:37: 'PLZ SEND ON/IN TIMES WHEN ABLE'. I knew the flight was on the ground but I was attempting to confirm the actual times. The crew never answered that ACARS message and they never confirmed that they received the landing distance information.I was relieved at XD:00 by the next dispatcher. I did not talk to the captain again.




Synopsis: The Dispatcher reported that he was unable to contact a flight returning to their departure airport after an engine failure.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SUN.Airport, ID
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: SUN is an accident waiting to happen; and ATC will be responsible when it does.  Due to terrain; SUN lands on Runway 31 and departs Runway 13.  The approach/departure path goes out through a narrow valley; with very little room to avoid opposite direction traffic.  Nevertheless; the tower at SUN thinks it's just fine to launch multiple aircraft at arrivals and hope for the best.  The published instruction for departures to hug one side of the valley while arrivals are on the other side is total nonsense.  The valley is NOT wide enough for traffic deconfliction.  We experienced an RA as we were turning final today; with outbound traffic.  Due to being held high on the arrival and then cleared for a visual approach; we were task-saturated and then had not one; but TWO departures to try to spot and avoid.  As we turned final; we were watching the first outbound aircraft on TCAS; and felt that we would not have a conflict.  Nevertheless; we got a DESCEND RA in the turn.  When IFR traffic is inbound to SUN; given the severe terrain restrictions; the tower should not launch departures unless the inbound is established on the final course.  Doing so with an aircraft in a turn to final risks a catastrophic traffic conflict.  As in our case; the outbound traffic is very hard to visually acquire and avoid. SUN ATC needs to take a hard look at their lax traffic management practices and make some major changes before they result in a mid-air collision.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported concerns with SUN Tower opposite direction procedures resulting in traffic conflicts.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Coalescer Bag
Component problem: Malfunctioning
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: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Dirty sock smell while descending into ZZZ around 20;000 feet. Mild smell in cockpit but stronger in front of cabin. Smell lasted 4-5 minutes. The plane has another fumes event 6 days prior.




Synopsis: Air Carrier fight crew reported a fume event during descent. The odor described as 'dirty socks' lasted for approximately 5 minutes.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZHN
ATC / advisory: Center ZHN
Aircraft component: APU
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We found on our flight plan that morning notes from Dispatch indicating fuel added to accommodate running the APU the entire flight. The reason was; a new APU was installed and an inflight start of that APU was required. They needed at least 2 hours cool down period prior to in flight start attempt. Since we did not have 2 hours to cool down the APU prior to entering ETOPS; maintenance requested that we keep the APU running until 2 hours prior to our top of descent. At that point we were to shut down the APU for 2 hours then attempt the restart at altitude. I shut down the APU as instructed; 2 hours prior to estimated TOD. I then attempted the restart at altitude FL390 after 2 hours cool down. The restart attempt was not successful. EGT raised normally and began reducing as usual but was followed by an APU Fault. Subsequent attempt during descent below FL350 was not successful as well. I then entered my full report of the scenario in the Maintenance Log Book. During the preflight phase of our flight we received multiple ACARS messages from dispatch confirming the procedure to follow which we confirmed. Additionally; during the APU shutdown period; we received an ACARS message from Dispatch asking if we had made our maintenance log entry. I responded by telling Dispatch that we were in the middle of the procedure and would report the results in the maintenance log. Dispatch responded with a thank you.Do not attempt a procedure like this while operating under ETOPS rules again. Domestic flight would have been a better choice for this kind of required check.


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


Synopsis: B757-200 flight crew on an ETOPS overwater flight reported they were tasked with testing the APU with an inflight start; and the APU would not restart. Reporter recommended they do these kind of tests on domestic flights.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Shortly after arriving at the aircraft; I began conducting my walkaround. As I was walking from the nose of the aircraft towards the right side of the aircraft; I witnessed the (Contract Fueler) actively talking on his phone. He was using wireless earbuds and was having a full conversation with the person on the phone. I completed my walkaround while monitoring him talking on the phone the entire time. I finished my walkaround and approached him as he was walking away from the aircraft. I told him he couldn't be on the phone while fueling. He smiled and said; 'I'm outside.' I repeated my remark; and he merely repeated himself while pointing to the aircraft; smiling even more than he was before. At first his response didn't make sense; but it became obvious he couldn't speak English and was trying to say he was now away from the aircraft; so I caught him after the fact. He walked away and sat on the concourse exterior stairs and continued his telephone conversation. He never ended his phone call; took his earbuds out; or showed remorse or sense of wrongdoing. I find this action to be incredibly unprofessional and unsafe. Not only was he preoccupied with his phone call; while he should be focused on flight line duties; but he's endangering everyone's life by emitting electro-static electricity while fueling the aircraft. This is clearly not a skill problem; but a will problem. I think this gentleman should be fired and replaced with someone with the discipline and maturity to handle a job with such dire consequences for failing to meet safety standards. I also think Company should cease business with (Contract Fueler) within the United States.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that the contract fueler refused to stop his cellphone call while fueling and did not understand English.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: DTW.Airport, MI
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground DTW
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After landing on Runway 22L in DTW; we exited the runway at Y4 and joined taxiway Y per Tower instructions. Switched to Ground and instructed to taxi via Y; J; J11 to the ramp. A few moments later; Ground revised the instructions to taxi via J and Q to the ramp. After making the turn onto taxiway J; I noticed an Aircraft Y approaching from the right on taxiway Q. It was apparent the Aircraft Y was not going to stop clear of the intersection so I immediately and forcefully braked to stop just short of the intersection of taxiways J and Q. The Aircraft Y also stopped but was already in the intersection. We ended up within maybe 50 feet of their wingtip. I queried Ground as to their intentions. Ground told Aircraft Y that they were supposed to give way to us and asked us if we were able to proceed. We replied that were unable. Aircraft Y then said they would proceed first. We then proceeded to taxi to the ramp. A misunderstanding or disregard for ATC instructions on the part of the [other] aircraft as well as the reduced visibility and night time operations were factors in this taxiway incursion. Also as I stated below under suggestions; it may be common practice in DTW to allow Ramp Control to clear aircraft across active taxiways to enter the ramp; which has the potential for traffic conflict. My First Officer; although contacting Ramp Control at the time; was looking outside but says Aircraft Y was in his blind spot between the windshield and the side window and he did not see it until after I slammed on the brakes. We did not hear the instructions given to Aircraft Y initially; but I assume they had landed on 22R and were told to hold short of J and contact the ramp. They had most likely contacted ramp before us and were cleared in. If that was the case; Ramp Control effectively instructed Aircraft Y to cross taxiway J to enter the ramp after giving us both clearance to our respective gates. Ground Control needs to have complete control of movement on taxiways and not allow ramp controllers to clear aircraft across active taxiways.




Synopsis: Regional jet Captain reported bringing the aircraft to an abrupt stop to avoid a collision on a taxiway at DTW airport.