elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: About 10 miles northeast of [the destination airport] at 4;000 FT; we were descending and being vectored for a visual approach to [the runway]. My First Officer noted that a parachute jumper was off the right side of the aircraft. I looked to the right to see if I could see them when I noted another jumper on the right front side of the aircraft. This jumper was clearly doing some evasive maneuvers to avoid us. The second jumper which I believe was a tandem jump passed down the right side of the aircraft about 150 FT away. I asked the Controller if he was aware of the jumpers. He said that the jump plane was being worked by a high side Controller. He then told us that the jumpers were not cleared to jump. He said that the higher Controller was holding the jumpers until we cleared the area. There was nothing on the ATIS referencing jumper in the area and there were no NOTAMS for jumpers. I called Dispatch on the ground and spoke to both the Dispatcher and a Station Director to make them aware of the event. ATC needs to stop vectoring us through jump zones when jumping is about to take place. If there is a jump plane in the air; we need to be vectored to stay clear. From the time a jump plane takes off until it has landed; that jump zone needs to be protected; just like airspace is protected for an aircraft on an approach into an uncontrolled airport. ATC protects the airspace until that aircraft reports on the ground.


Second narrative: On descent via a published arrival; we were level at 4;000 FT on a 240 degree heading when we passed two parachutes off our right wing. I was the First Officer pilot flying when I saw the first parachute pass 300-400 FT off our right wing co-altitude. The Captain then identified a second parachute; apparently maneuvering defensively to avoid us; pass 200-300 FT off our right wing; co-altitude. The Captain; as pilot monitoring; asked Approach Control if they were aware of jumping activity in our area. ATC advised that jumpers were; 'supposed to wait until you were clear.' The rest of approach and landing were uneventful.


Synopsis: The Air Carrier flight crew observed several parachutes in close proximity during approach to a major metropolitan airport. When they inquired with ATC; they received the response that the jumpers had not been cleared to jump.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Embraer Jet Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B LGA
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Manuals; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: It was my First Officer's leg into LGA. We were assigned the Expressway Visual to Runway 31 to cross the tanks at 2;500 feet and cleared the visual. We did that. My First Officer started down from 2;500 feet soon after that as we tracked left of the expressway. I could tell we were maybe a little high so I told him that I thought we were high and if he wanted to get fully configured; he agreed and asked for flaps 5 and the Before Landing Checklist. I preformed the checklist and we continued on. I reminded him not to overshoot the runway at all and to turn early.We may have overshot by a small amount and which time he increased his decent rate a little too much for a short period. We were lined up with the Runway 31 and maybe just a little low. The PAPI indicator 3rd light way showing a pinkish color but not solid red. We received a short-lived ground proximity warning; I scanned quickly and noticed we were on path; on speed and lined up with the runway; I decided to continue to the runway where we landed uneventfully. Not being familiar with this airport or with how fast the arrival happens I think are the biggest factors in this. If you start your descent right after the white tanks by DIALS Intersection and get all the way configured after that it would have been more successful of an arrival.




Synopsis: Embraer Captain reported challenging conditions experienced while flying the Expressway Visual approach to Runway 31 at LGA resulting in an unstabilized approach.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: VFR
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-20 Pacer/PA-22 Tri-Pacer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: During landing roll out after a 3 point landing; an indescribable event caused the aircraft to steer to the right. Due to the low airspeed there was no rudder authority to displace the aircraft heading to the right and at a slow speed on the landing rollout the aircraft ground looped and slips to the right. The left wingtip contacted the ground and the aircraft changed direction by 180 degrees. No other damage was created to the aircraft or airport facilities. After further inspection on the aircraft it was determined the aircraft suffered damage to the tail wheel and the left wing.




Synopsis: PA-20 pilot reported an 'indescribable event' caused a loss of control resulting in a ground loop damaging the left wing and tail wheel.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Government
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: ATC cleared our UAV via a vector change to our route of flight due to active military airspace. The new route took the UAV over the populated area of a nearby large city. We are not allowed to fly the UAV over populated areas; so asked for vectors around the city. ATC then assigned a heading of 095 which would have put the UAV over the populated area of an adjacent smaller city so we again asked for another heading to avoid populated areas. They then assigned a heading of 085 to avoid overflight of the smaller city. Center continued to provide vectors around all the populated areas. Once clear; Center handed us off to Approach and recovery was made without further incident.




Synopsis: When the UAV's original route of flight was compromised by an active MOA; its flight crew received vectors around populated areas and to the vicinity of their recovery station.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Electronic Device; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Made our pre departure announcement. I did a compliance check on my way back to 'B' and noticed 4b on her phone. I let her know we were closing the MCD (Main Cabin Door) and asked her to finish her phone call. She replied 'uh-huh'.A noticed that she was texting after we took off and asked her to please make sure her phone was in airplane mode.After we did a service and I went to the front of the aircraft; I could see her texting again. As soon as she saw I passed she flipped her phone face down on her tray table. I made an announcement to please make sure electronic devices are in game/airplane mode.This passenger is a [premium frequent flyer.] I feel if we would of returned back to the gate or had authorities meet the plane the company would not have had our back and would have reprimanded myself and my other flight attendant. However; she was not compliant. It wasn't that she just didn't know any better. She is a [frequent flyer] which is a hard status to achieve and she was purposely not complying and having a smug attitude.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported passenger using electronic device in prohibited mode.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: GTF.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D GTF
ATC / advisory: TRACON GTF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Flight was descending for approach into GTF from the northeast. There was a ceiling at approximately 6;000 feet AGL; and a visual approach to Runway 21 was anticipated once below the ceiling. After descending below the ceiling; a large airport complex with a long runway oriented to the southwest was observed. Both pilots believed this to be the GTF airport and it was reported in sight to ATC; who then cleared the flight for a visual approach to Runway 21. As the flight continued towards the airport; the pilots realized that this airport complex did not correspond to the GTF RNAV 21 guidance that was being used as an aid for the visual approach. The pilots visually located GTF further to the southwest and continued the visual approach to GTF. Post flight investigation revealed that the large airport complex initially observed was Malmstrom AFB (Air Force Base). Malmstrom AFB has a closed runway surface that is nearly identical in orientation and length to GTF Runway 21. However; there is little or no indication of the existence of this facility on IFR publications. Because the runway is closed; Malmstrom AFB is considered a heliport even though it visually appears to be a large runway similar to GTF. This prevents the facility from showing up on cockpit avionics displays and electronic moving maps; because heliports are excluded. The facility does also not appear on IFR enroute or terminal charts. It does appear on the VFR sectional chart; but only as a heliport. The VFR sectional chart does not convey the similarity of the complex to GTF. Recommend that Malmstrom AFB be depicted on IFR charts; so that pilots are better aware of its existence and similar appearance to GTF. Also consider whether the closed runway can be contained in navigational databases; so that it will appear on cockpit displays and electronic moving maps.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that during a visual approach to GTF airport the crew inadvertently flew toward a nearby Air Force Base with a runway complex that was nearly identical to GTF airport. The crew became reoriented and continued toward the clearance airport.
Date: 201308
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
Aircraft component: Powerplant Lubrication System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: At 6;000 FT on approach our right engine shut down and a loss of engine oil pressure was indicated. The Captain was flying and I ran the checklists after declaring an emergency and requested [a longer] runway. The landing was accomplished without further incident.




Synopsis: The pilots of a B757 observed engine oil pressure loss indications and the engine shut down on approach; so they declared an emergency and requested a longer landing runway.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1201-1800
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
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: We were descending on the IRNMN2 into LAX and had just passed CLIFY when ATC cleared us down to 2;600 feet. I began the descent; and around 4;000 feet we hit wake turbulence. It was a surprise given that ATC didn't caution us for wake turbulence; and we didn't have anyone ahead of us on the TCAS. I leveled off to get above the wake; the First Officer informed ATC that we were leveling off and had encountered wake turbulence. They gave us a 10 degree left turn to avoid further wake turbulence. On final approach I flew a dot high to stay out of any unstable air. Upon arrival at the gate I asked the flight attendants if they were okay; and one of them informed me she had hurt her wrist. I asked if she was okay to continue. She said she was going to the doctor after the trip to get it checked out. I asked her to call her Supervisor to be sure we were taking the correct course of action; given that I didn't believe we could keep her flying if she was hurt. She elected to take the sick leave; Scheduling quickly called to let me know we were getting the On Call Flight Attendant; and we continued to our next leg.This wake turbulence encounter was unusual. I knew there was a large aircraft ahead of us; but they were a safe distance ahead of us. Plus; ATC is typically good about warning of wake turbulence; and I always look at the TCAS to see how close we are to specifically avoid these kinds of issues. Neither ATC nor the TCAS gave us any reason for alarm. Everything was done legally and with the best of intentions; I never want a crew member to get hurt.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 Captain reported a Flight Attendant was slightly injured during a wake turbulence encounter on approach to LAX.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on short final at about 350 feet about one mile from the runway. I saw something at the corner of my eye on the left side of the aircraft. I assumed it was a bird but upon closer look I could see that it was a four bladed drone. I immediately notified the Tower. He came back a few moments later and said 'You mean a bird?' I responded with a 'sure a bird'; knowing that a drone would shut down the airspace. The controller then notified the next few aircraft in line to land.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported a drone on short final.
Date: 202103
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Other NA
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Fatigue
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Other Dispatcher office
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Staffing; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: 30 flights today. Hoping for a perfect day; no swaps; no 2nd releases. Too many flights. Yesterday; another Dispatcher with 30+ flights had a Part 91 flight. The Part 91 flight was not a typical one concerning flight planning and approaches with runway closed. The result was that the Dispatcher and Chief spent so much time on this flight to make sure it was legal and safe; that the Dispatcher was unable to leave the desk to grab their lunch out of the fridge to eat. The Dispatcher did not eat lunch due to the operational pressure to release the remaining flights on the desk before shift end. So sad that Dispatchers are forgoing lunch and bathroom breaks due to the increase in workload. What a shame to what this has become.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported the office workload has increase to a level that now interferes with lunch and lavatory breaks.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: Pneumatic Valve/Bleed Valve
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Diverted; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: En route; at FL250 we received an EICAS message stating Engine Bleed 1 Valve Closed; about 25 seconds after we had a WING and STAB ANTI ICE FAIL and then a warning EICAS message ANTI ICE FAIL in icing conditions. I was the pilot not flying and; after consulting with the Captain; I declared an emergency; stated the problem and asked for lower. The Controller assigned us FL240 and then down to 16;000. As I retrieved my manual to troubleshoot the closed message; all of the messages went away. After discussing with the Captain; we cancelled the emergency due to the fact everything was working correctly and we continued down to 10;000 where ground contact was made leading to an uneventful visual approach to Runway 35. I reviewed my manual for all of the messages that were presented in the event they returned. All procedures were complied with and Maintenance was contacted on arrival with a description of the event.


Second narrative: Received WING AND STAB ANTI ICE FAIL Message on EICAS in icing conditions. Declared emergency and descended to a lower altitude out of icing. Windows on the ice panel all showed open inscriptions. Bleed #1 showed a closed advisory message on EICAS. Anti ice fail message extinguished after a descent to a lower assigned altitude.


Synopsis: An EMB ERJ 145 had engine bleed and anti ice problems. The QRH action by the crew; and descent resolved the problems.