elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DMW.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Amateur/Home Built/Experimental
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E PCT
Second aircraft: Pilatus Porter PC6
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying direct from HZL VOR to EMI VOR in level cruise at 6500 feet; a Turbo Porter (or similar) aircraft plummeted from an altitude above me in a fully-developed spin; and continued in that spin to an altitude below me; at a clock face position of about 2:00 to 3:00 to my aircraft (his relative position changed as I passed). I estimated his distance this morning; using a line of backed-up traffic for comparison. Finding a car that was about the same distance from me as the Porter; then counting the number of cars between us; I was surprised that the distance was just fifteen cars; or about 240 feet! The Porter aircraft was close enough that I saw his paint job in detail.The Porter aircraft was being flown in a manner that precluded his ability to 'see and avoid.' The fact that he was riding that spin for several thousands of feet vertically also made it difficult for other aircraft such as mine to see and avoid him; pilots are not typically looking for traffic which is falling vertically from the sky. I suspect that this aircraft was spinning the aircraft down in order to minimize the time spent in his descent. This practice is inherently unsafe and should not be permissible in unrestricted airspace. It was only by sheer luck that a catastrophic collision was avoided this time.




Synopsis: Glasair pilot reported an NMAC with a spinning aircraft that descended rapidly through his altitude.
Date: 201204
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.Airport, NM
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C ABQ
ATC / advisory: Tower ABQ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Prior to descent Captain briefed ILS Runway 8 ABQ and a visual to Runway 21 just in case per ATIS. During descent we got a new ATIS showing only a visual approach to Runway 26 because of the strong winds 250/20. The Captain rebriefed and reloaded the box with a CF of 1;500 AGL 5 miles out. Approach cleared us the visual to Runway 26. We crossed MIERA at 15;000 FT. The Captain slowed and configured early. We monitored the radar altitude and descent profile. We were going through 9;200 FT with a radar altitude of 1;700 FT AGL when Tower called and asked about turbulence. Immediately after I responded Tower called minimum vectoring altitude is 9;200 FT. We were at 9;000 FT. Seconds later we got an EGPWS warning Captain immediately executed the escape maneuver. I looked at our radar altimeter and saw we were climbing and called out 1;500 FT climbing. Captain returned to a stabilized approach and completed the visual approach to Runway 26. Recommend a visual approach procedure for ABQ Runway 26/Runway 21 with radial/DME altitude constraints. We talked about asking control to vector us to a 5 NM final for terrain clearance and we should have done that. Also have a minimum vectoring alt chart for ABQ. I would not recommend a visual to Runway 26 or Runway 21 at night.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer describes a night visual approach to Runway 26 at ABQ that results in an ATC low altitude alert followed quickly by an EGPWS terrain warning. The escape maneuver is initiated until clear then the visual approach is continued to landing. Reporter recommends against night visual approaches to Runway 26.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Our PDC departing out of BWI cleared us fly the TERPZ6 Departure; as well as to 'climb via; except maintain 4000 ft.' After takeoff; upon handoff to Potomac Departure Control; Potomac cleared us to 'climb via the departure.' The aircraft was starting to level at 4000 feet and went into ALT ACQ pitch mode. We quickly consulted the published TERPZ6 Departure and saw that the top altitude was 17;000 feet for our departure transition. We dialed in 17;000 feet in the MCP and re-engaged VNAV. The aircraft was a little slow to re-establish a climb; and we got a query from ATC to verify if we were climbing. We responded in the affirmative. We ended up getting cleared direct for some shortcuts; so there were no problems with complying with any altitude restrictions on the route.Until the newest revision to the TERPZ6; Potomac Departure Controllers were using non-standard phraseology. Up until that point in time; all the Controllers were consistently using the following non-standard phraseology upon check-in with departure: 'Company XXX; Potomac Departure; Climb via departure; except maintain 17;000 feet.' The top altitude was always 17;000 feet; so that last part 'except maintain 17;000 feet' was redundant. I know they were trying to eliminate any ambiguity; but I can bet that most of the Pilots departing from BWI have gotten used to this non-standard phraseology of the extra phrase '...except maintain 17;000 feet' to clarify the climb via clearance. Now this switch from non-standard to standard phraseology - just only 'climb via' is bound to confuse many Pilots; especially those who fly out of BWI often. There is a huge expectation bias to hear the clearance 'climb via; except maintain 17;000 feet.'Make sure the Pilot Flying always briefs the top altitude in the SID; and that we listen carefully and comply with climb via clearances. Re-read the recent published articles on other feedback about climb via clearances.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported confusion regarding a 'climb via' clearance departing BWI.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 9999
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Other landing rollout
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the roll out after a normal 3 point landing the aircraft veered sharply to the right off the runway and ended up in a ditch. No injuries; no structural damage to the aircraft; or airport property resulted from this incident. Winds were variable. The approach was stable; the landing was smooth. Emergency procedures were activated after the aircraft came to a standstill (fuel shut off & magnetos off) the ELT was activated automatically. I believe this incident was caused by excessive control input; using my right leg on the rudder instead of just my toes. Too much right rudder applied (too long; too strong) I should have just used my toes & ankles on the rudder during the roll out. A possible contributing factor might have been that the front seatbelt (solo from the rear) was buckled but not tight and it was found on the left rudder pedal near the left brake. What I learned from this incident: I will take more tailwheel instruction; focusing on rudder control. I will make the front seatbelt check & secure a checklist item; and I will take an instructor up with me if I feel my skills are rusty or when environmental conditions are challenging.




Synopsis: Small Aircraft Private Pilot reported loss of control during landing.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BLM.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF BLM
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: The first 3;000 feet of Runway 14 has excessive dips and divots that are bottoming out our landing gear struts during landing rollout and during takeoff. On landing Runway 14; after touchdown with the thrust reversers deployed; we felt the main landing gear struts fully compress and the aircraft nearly bounce. The nose strut also bottomed out and we were pushed into our seats hard. This occurred around 80-100 knots and the dips continued down the runway fully compressing our struts each time. On departure from Runway 14; the same thing happened. We are concerned that without an immediate repair to the runway; that these dips and divots will grow and potentially cause harm to the aircraft landing gear and structure which would cause a landing or takeoff accident. It's that bad.




Synopsis: Pilot reported runway condition at BLM airport could cause aircraft damage.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
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; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was at D2 which the stratum is up to FL350. RX I think had 2 similar sounding call signs Air Carrier ABC and Air Carrier ADC. From what I gather; they were both shipped to RY and when the RY Controller changed the altitude of Air Carrier ADC from FL360 to FL350 when he was in RY's airspace; Air Carrier ABC; who was in RX's airspace took it and descended. At RY; a PVD was quickly put up when RX noticed the Air Carrier descending. We had an aircraft at FL150 deviating; but we were able to turn and descend him just in case because we had no idea why the Air Carrier was descending. Nothing at Sector 2 could have been done different; but every day all the time we have way too many similar sounding call signs in our airspace from the same company; mostly. They depart the same airport; fly almost the same routes and it's very dangerous. They also have routes that converge and we have to call traffic; which can be quite dangerous if one slips on listening. Also; the sectors in our area were completely saturated and were filled with deviations for weather. A little flow into the area would help with so many dangerous situations.


Second narrative: [Narrative #2 held no additional information.]


Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a near separation loss when multiple same company aircraft with similar sounding flight numbers confused instructions/read backs and caused the event.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Engine
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; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: At approximately 200 ft. on takeoff we flew into a flock of geese. There were noticeable impacts with the birds; and an audible change in engine noise followed by vibration. I took the flight controls and told the First Officer to [advise ATC] and that we would return to land. Although there was an audible change in the engine noise; vibration; and power there were no visible indications on the EICAS that there was an issue. There was a noticeable smell of smoke briefly after the bird strike. I notified the Flight Attendant that we would be making a precautionary landing in less than 5 minutes. Higher than normal power settings were required during the circle back to land. I requested that the First Officer back up the Visual Approach with the ILS. I elected to stay close to the field and make a close in approach. We were stabilized by approximately 600 ft. Higher than normal power settings were required. The landing was made overweight at approximately 46;000 lbs. with a touchdown rate of less than 300 ft. per minute.




Synopsis: ERJ-145 Captain reported that a bird strike on takeoff resulted in a precautionary landing.
Date: 201807
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Aircraft: Cessna 340/340A
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X departed SNA with a filed route of V64 eastbound. We have two handoff options for this flow. One is southeast of Santiago Peak at 070 and one is joining the airway west of the peak climbing to 110. My trainee chose to use the latter handoff and climbed the aircraft to 110; thinking that it would certainly be above the 079 MVA (Minimum Vectoring Altitude) around the peak. The aircraft was climbing slowly and I prepared to turn the plane once I was sure the trainee had missed it. When it came time to take action she keyed up; but responded to another conflict that was happening in the sector. I immediately called her attention to the MVA issue and she followed with a hurried transmission to turn the aircraft. The aircraft violated the 079 MVA climbing out of 063 by about 1/2 mile. Neither of us issues a low altitude alert to the aircraft due to other issues needing action within the sector. The aircraft proceeded out of the MVA and continued to climb before being re-vectored to V64 and handed off normally. This was my fault as an instructor. I thought I had the time to save it when the trainee made the wrong transmission. I should never let an aircraft get 'one transmission away' from an unsafe situation. In the future I will be increasing my safety bubble while instructing so as to take action with enough time to absorb a missed transmission or read back.




Synopsis: SCT Controller reported C340 entered a higher Minimum Vectoring Altitude.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PWK.Airport, IL
Aircraft: RV-4
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D PWK
ATC / advisory: Tower PWK
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Flight Data / Clearance Delivery; Supervisor / CIC; Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: I was working Clearance Delivery; Flight Data and Ground Control and was Controller in Charge (CIC). The Local Controller was certified [recently]. The Local Controller had several arrivals; departures; and a Cessna in the pattern for full stop taxi-backs. During the time of the incident I was handling some CIC duties; numerous phone calls; one of which was a fellow controller calling for sick leave for the rest of the week which needed to be entered into web scheduler; also had some Flight Data tasks. I believe I was working on a reroute at the time and the ASOS hourly alarm was sounding to prepare the hourly METAR.While this was going on; Local control requested the runway be his control for his pattern traffic. I heard an aircraft call from the ramp ready to taxi. In the following minutes I taxied him to the active runway with the necessary crossings and continued with the other duties. I missed that I had crossed a now active runway or that an aircraft cancelled his takeoff roll. The incident was brought to the attention of the Air Traffic Manager (ATM) a week later by the pilot of the Cessna who aborted his takeoff; who in turn informed me of the event. The pilot reported that he got his aircraft up to almost 25 mph before cancelling and turning off at the first intersection. The traffic crossed at the next intersection down the runway.I believe I let myself get distracted with phone calls; CIC duties; and administrative work while my Ground Control duties were not as busy at the time; which led to a breakdown in communication and coordination with Local Control. I should have been more vigilant with a newly certified Local Controller on position and focused more on my position duties than on the phone calls and CIC/administrative duties. I will do my best to avoid such situations again and keep my priorities focused on the operation.




Synopsis: PWK Tower Controller working multiple combined positions reported allowing an aircraft to taxi across an active runway with another aircraft on takeoff roll.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: TUL.Airport, OK
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C TUL
ATC / advisory: TRACON TUL
Aircraft component: Approach Coupler
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
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Descending to TUL. Heading to the marker for the approach to [Runway] 18L; approximately 2 miles before the localizer; the aircraft intercepted something like a false localizer and started turning to a heading parallel to the actual final course. We were caught by surprise. I kicked off the autopilot and turned back towards the marker as we were on the visual. But after all the turns; it took a bit to figure out again where we were. We may have gotten lower than normal during this time; but we reestablished a normal approach to landing.My question is; WHAT happened? Why did the aircraft turn. I've seen it before; but not often enough to expect it.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported autopilot intercepted false localizer on approach.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CDW.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower CDW
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] was cleared for takeoff on Runway 4 at Caldwell Airport; NJ (CDW). [I] crossed the east side hold line and made a final check of the Runway 4 final approach. [I] and rear seat passenger spotted [a] low-wing [aircraft] on very short final. Aircraft X stopped immediately just past the hold line to avoid a potential collision with the landing [aircraft]. Pilot of [landing aircraft] advised ATC that they had just cleared [my aircraft] for takeoff while [they were] still on short final. ATC responded requesting [me] to hold position and apologized for the error. [Landing aircraft] executed a go-around procedure and [I] was subsequently released for takeoff.A classic low-wing/high-wing landing collision was avoided by making the final landing zone check prior to entering the runway takeoff area.




Synopsis: C172 pilot was cleared for takeoff and noticed another aircraft on final approach to the same runway. ATC reportedly apologized for the error.