elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: N90.TRACON, NY
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We pulled up the ATIS for EWR prior to the descent and saw that they were using Runway 22L; so we setup and briefed the approach and landing to 22L. When we checked on with New York Approach he gave us the local altimeter and said expect 22L ILS. The FO said 'good; just like we briefed.' After vectors around the Approach Controller cleared us for the ILS 22L. When he switched us to Tower; checked in that we were just inside GIMEE for 22L. The tower guy asked if we were cleared for the ILS 22R. I replied 'no.' He said we should have been by approach. I asked if we could side step when we broke out and he cleared us for the side step 22R and cleared to land. When we broke out of the clouds the FO moved over to 22R and landed without incident. On taxi in I asked FO to look at the ATIS I got when we were being vectored after our brief. Sure enough it had 22L closed.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports retrieving ATIS indicating landing Runway 22L at EWR. Upon check in with N90 the ILS 22L is assigned. Checking in with EWR Tower the runway assignment is 22R and the controller indicates that N90 should have assigned Runway 22R as Runway 22L is closed. The ATIS is rechecked after landing and is stating 22R is the landing runway.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Ground Personnel; Person Other Person
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Loading staff checked to see if DG was properly secured in two different AKE containers. DG not properly secured/lashed.




Synopsis: Airline arrival ground crew reported Dangerous Goods containers not securely loaded at departure point.
Date: 202101
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other All
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Passenger X came to the back gallery requesting water. Mentioning that he gets a little tickle in his throat here and there. He mentioned that him and his wife both had COVID in 2020. His wife had it first. I believe he said he had tested positive that month and then tested negative the next month. His wife was sitting in seat XX3. And he went to sit up in Seat YY3. They were a party of X. He talked to the guest in YY4 for quite a bit during the flight. I just wanted to document this because all the flight attendants had contact with their party of X. And the rest of the party could be carrying and asymptomatic. And what if his negative COVID test was a false negative? I believe they were headed to a resort. I did my demo right next to them. It's a safety issue if this guest and/or his party of X happened to be contagious with COVID.Maybe asked him if he was traveling with others and if they all had tested negative?




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concern after a passenger stated he and his wife had recently recovered from COVID-19.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Fuel System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During the descent we received a R Low Fuel Press Caution Message. The message cleared on its own while still in the descent after about 3 to 4 minutes. We complied with the QRH and noted no anomalies in the engine operations. I wrote the incident up in the logbook and contacted Maintenance. Maintenance said that this was normal and just a nuisance. They stated that their maintenance supplement stated it was ok during landing and descent for this to occur. They further stated that I could make it as entered in error or they could delay the flight and have Maintenance come out to and clear it as OK and a bogus caution reading. I was familiar with the situation on the ground during braking but never had this during flight. I stated this to the Maintenance Coordinator. He said this was what was in their supplement and there was no restriction on how long it lasted. We marked the entry as entered in error and departed to [the next station] without the message returning. At the end of the day I did a search of the [flight manual] PDF file and found that it does not cover this issue in flight at all but is restricted to landing and taxi. It is now unclear whether I should have marked it as entered in error and if I was being misled by the Maintenance Controller based on their memory. If the maintenance supplement does in fact cover descents then this needs to be added to the [Flight Manual] so that they are providing the same information. To prevent this I would have done a better search of the FCM. I only found it with the electronic search function of the PDF on my computer. Maintenance and Flight Ops need to make sure that their manuals; limitations and procedures match and do not provide conflicting information.




Synopsis: The pilot of a CRJ-200 was concerned about the information he received from Maintenance personnel that appeared to contradict the Flight Manual.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CRW.Airport, WV
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: The Runway 23 ALS has been OTS for over three years!!! After reading the maintenance response as to why this vital piece of equipment has not been fixed and doesn't seem to be a high priority; there needed to be someone to speak for the flying public. Numerous times people have been denied access to our airport due to a simple piece of equipment. Fog reduces visibility over the runway and without approach lights it raises the minimums. When someone dies due to this issue it might bring a closer look at why this has been allowed to continue for over three years!!! Fix the ALS... it's that simple.




Synopsis: A CRW Controller is concerned about the long standing Approach Lighting System (ALS) outage; claiming users are negatively impacted by this equipment limitation.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence; Hail
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Beechjet 400
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Weather Radar
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: When cruising at FL350 and deviating right of course for thunderstorm avoidance on a heading of 075 we began to encounter blow off and overhangs from other cells in the area reducing visibility to IMC. ATC was overwhelmed and could not give us requested higher altitude and due to high traffic in the area we did not initiate a further deviation right of course until we could ask ATC. Our radar was operating and being manipulated by the Captain showing no cells along our route of flight. We did not realize our radar had failed (no cockpit indications) and suddenly we were in a extreme thunderstorm cell. Our altitude deviated considerably 1;500 feet up and 700 feet down from FL350. We encountered light hail extreme precipitation and severe turbulence. Upon exiting the cell we immediately flew towards clear air and made the decision to divert to ZZZ. Suspecting possible negative G limits had been exceeded and concerned about possible aircraft damage. ATC was able to immediately accommodate our diversion and I landed on runway XX at ZZZ without further issue. The radar and possible turbulence damage was written up in the maintenance log and the company notified according to SOPs and Op Specs. Ensure all radars are operational and checked regularly by Maintenance. Also release this incident to the entire pilot group so that they are aware of this possible issue when operating near thunderstorms.




Synopsis: First Officer reported the aircraft weather radar failed in heavy weather and the flight crew elected to divert to a precautionary landing.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew FLC Overrode Automation; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On an instrument flight plan to ZZZ in IFR; flight was at 7;000 feet above cloud tops which were between 3-6000 feet on the STAR. We had been advised that we would be vectored for the XXR ILS approach to ZZZ and instructed to descend to 5000.As we began our descent into IMC; the autopilot seemed to roll into a right descending turn; and I saw our heading change to approximately a 170 degree heading (or more); where we had been assigned 070. We quickly regained control of the aircraft and began to hand fly it.Once control was regained; we called ATC immediately on their approach frequency; to alert them to our deviation. They asked only if we needed help. I told them to standby while we sorted through things. I called a second time to say that we reestablished our assigned heading and altitude. We called out that we had the field and they switched us over to the Tower who advised us to land on runway XY; which we did without incident.




Synopsis: BE-36 pilot experienced autopilot failure in IMC on ILS approach.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: After receiving the auto close out Captain noticed that the [cargo release] showed [dangerous goods] but the auto closeout did not. There was no NOTOC. Captain noticed after the Auto closeout. The Dangerous Goods/Hazardous Materials [cargo] aft block on the [cargo release] was likely circled in error. Flight continued as normal. There were no Dangerous Goods onboard. Captain discussed with Chief Pilot. Suggest continued adherence to policy and procedures.




Synopsis: EMB-145LR Captain reported flight crew departure document contained errors regarding Dangerous Goods; when there were none on board.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach; Landing
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: Tower LAX
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Company Policy; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: We were on a Visual Approach to Runway 25L on a very good VMC day (flight visibility exceeded 30 miles). Descending through 600 feet the Tower Controller cleared Aircraft Y to cross Runway 25L on taxiway F (from left to right) and to hold short of Runway 25R. It seemed a little close to us; but Aircraft Y did a nice job of expediting through our runway; and was clear of it by the time we descended through 400 feet. As we were over the approach lights - below 100 feet but not yet even with Aircraft Y; the Tower cleared Aircraft Y aircraft to cross Runway 25R. This meant Aircraft Y was advancing the throttles - creating significant jet blast - as we were transitioning into our flare directly behind him; thanks to a careless ATC clearance.We quickly recognized what was about to happen; and the Captain adjusted his glide path higher to target the final 1;000 feet of the touchdown zone. Even doing so; we were rocked fairly hard by Aircraft Y's jet blast. I called the Tower on the phone about 40 minutes later to discuss the incident. I could describe the response from the controller I spoke to; as a collective 'shrug'. He specifically said there was no prohibition to crossing a plane between the runways in a situation like that. And that they used to worry about it [years ago]. But they basically didn't worry about it now.This situation could have led to a far more dangerous outcome. Aircraft Y's crew could not see behind their jet; so they would have to assume it was clear behind them. And being heavily loaded; they would need higher power settings to taxi. If we were not alert nor anticipating the situation; Aircraft Y's jet blast could have blown us off the runway or into a sideways yaw/roll at a time and altitude which would have put recovery in doubt.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported experiencing jet-blast in the flare from a heavy jet taxiing between the runways.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.ARTCC, FO
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing RJAA. I was PF (Pilot Flying). Captain was PM (Pilot Monitoring). Relief FO (First Officer) was sitting in observer seat. We were within a close margin of max structural weight but within all limits. It was briefed that the best angle speed (258 kts.) and flaps up maneuver speed (254 kts.) would exceed the 250 [kts.] below 10;000 ft. restriction so we opted to keep Flaps 1 until passing 10;000 [ft.] so that we could maintain maneuverability. Once we cleaned up to Flaps 1; I opened the speed window and manually set speed to 240 kts. The overspeed margin was currently 250 kts. The underspeed margin was around 225 kts. Flaps 1 maneuver speed was about 235 kts. Upon reaching 10;000 ft.; I put 245 kts. in the speed window to initiate an acceleration that would then continue past 254 kts. for the Flaps Up speed as the flaps transitioned. The transition was going as planned until we hit some moderate wake turbulence from crossing traffic. The speed started to shoot up dramatically towards the upper limit. I applied some back pressure while keeping the AP engaged to get the nose up and arrest the speed increase. I was able to arrest most of the speed increase but it still resulted in a 1 or 2 kt. overspeed. At this time; the turbulence became more intense and both the low and high speed regimes converged. I disengaged the AP/AT (Autopilot/Autothrottle) and hand flew to best maintain airspeed as I anticipated a drop in airspeed on the other side of the wake turbulence. The airspeed started to drop but was arrested with manual input. Once the high and low speed margins stabilized and the turbulence subsided; we re-automated the aircraft and continued our departure without incident.I did not anticipate the wake of crossing traffic to be such a factor in our tight tolerances. When so close to max structural weight on TO (takeoff); the transition from Flaps 1 to Flaps Up is always on a razor thin margin. Any significant wake; turbulence or even wind shift will put you into and undesired airspeed regime. I would suggest not loading the aircraft right up to max weights and this has always been an issue for flap transition on the 767.




Synopsis: B767 F/O reported encountering wake turbulence departing RJAA at a heavy weight that resulted in an airspeed deviation.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 36
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departed ZZZ direct to ZZZ1 via local Special Flight Rules area. Had flight following from ZZZ to ZZZ1 at 3;500 ft. Prior to the ZZZ VOR I visually saw traffic at my 8 o'clock converging. I then got a call from ATC to watch for traffic who they where not talking to. The traffic continued towards me with out diverting. ATC gave me a Bravo clearance and I had to do a right 360 to avoid traffic. He then proceeded in front of me for local Speical Flight Rules area. When entering local Special Flight Rules area we got a frequency change. When making my first call I asked if the other aircraft was on frequency. He was and stated he saw us but that I was at the wrong altitude and I should have been at a different altitude.




Synopsis: Bonanza 36 Single pilot reported an NMAC event due to wrong altitude.