elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ACY.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ACY
ATC / advisory: Tower ACY
Second aircraft: Light Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Instructor; Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was in the Tower VFR pattern. Local Control coordinated with Approach that Aircraft X will follow traffic on the ILS Approach. Aircraft Y was turned on the approach at 2;000 feet and was tracking the approach inbound. I was conducting training and we were discussing how Aircraft X will fall in nice behind Aircraft Y. Right before Approach was going to switch Aircraft Y to the Tower I noticed Aircraft X turning his base turn. He was only 2 miles off the approach course opposite direction as it was. The trainee on Approach issued a traffic alert and gave Aircraft Y a turn to the right heading 270 degrees. This put the aircraft nose to nose. I took over the frequency and gave Aircraft Y a left turn 040 away from Aircraft X.Aircraft Y did not see Aircraft X due to a cloud. There was maybe a mile between the 2 aircraft and closing. It was close. Closer than anything I have seen in [all my] years. The pilot of [Aircraft X] later called the Approach Control and spoke to the Supervisor admitting to the error. I was able to watch the radar replay and it was close. Disturbing.




Synopsis: A TRACON Controller reported an aircraft on downwind turned base leg on its own toward traffic established on short final.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Gulfstream IV / G350 / G450
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Diverted; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Arrived to fly a G450 that had been parked outside and covered in snow. It had arrived the previous night having taxied thru wet snow that had frozen on wheels and underwings from wheel splash.  We had plane brought into hangar to thaw out and then deiced when towed back out after passengers arrived. Taxied with no issues and departed. As PM; upon positive rate when gear up was called for; gear handle would not move having not shifted to 'Air' mode. Then immediately followed by CAS messages of WOW (Weight on Wheels) Fail; Steer by wire failure; and Anti-skid failure. Climbed in radar vectors to 5000 ft and notified ATC we needed to stop climb to work an issue.  Ran checklist that did not correct problem of raising gear. Having no Flight Attendant; I the NFP; advised 6 passengers of issue and would get back to them after we ran additional checklists.Contacted Operations and connected call with company and Gulfstream Maintenance; Assistant Chief pilot and a Gulfstream Test Pilot. Determined that further mechanical and or electrical issue existed causing the faults and that a divert to favorable runway since we have no nose wheel steering and no anti-skid.  Return to ZZZ was not an option due to gusting crosswind and contaminated runways. Diverted to ZZZ1 with 10;000 foot runway. I prepared and secured cabin and briefed passengers of the divert and landing and what to expect. Landed and brought plane to stop on runway and had towed clear to FBO.Unable to determine additional suggestions until maintenance can reveal what may have failed or broke. Crew did everything professional with regards to ATC; Checklists; passengers concerns; follow through with company maintenance and Assistant Chief pilot suggestions. Flow of procedures were conducted in a calm and timely manner ensuring safety of passengers; crew and aircraft.


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


Synopsis: G450 flight crew reported they were unable to raise the landing gear handle and the landing gear would not retract.
Date: 201812
Light: Daylight
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
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Security; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the flight; I was helping with luggage and noticed a colorful toy gun attached to a bag. A child was sitting in the row below it and I did not question whose it was. After the plane landed and was deplaned; the A Flight Attendant found the toy gun and a 2nd one. She thought they might be TSA plants and handed them off to the Ops Agent.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported finding two toy guns on the aircraft and wondered if the TSA planted the gun; or if it was a child's that was on the airplane.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HPN.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: It was VFR and we were on the VALRE 4 arrival between VALRE and BAYSE; descending through 8;000 FT for 6;000 FT; when ATC urgently commanded us; 'Take a 30 degree left turn for traffic.' I immediately replied to the request; when ATC urgently replied; 'Stop descent and hold altitude.' We had already descended below 8;000 FT; and I replied; 'Holding 7;500 FT'; as I hit the altitude hold button and dialed 7;500 FT. Neither one of us recalls any TCAS indication of traffic; and as soon as ATC tried to call out traffic we got a double RA. The first command was to 'DESCEND' followed by a reversal to 'CLIMB; CLIMB.' As the First Officer immediately disengaged the autopilot and followed the commands; I caught a reflection off the C-172 and told the First Officer; 'I have the traffic keep climbing. Keep climbing!' As it went under us; I announce to ATC; 'RA CLIMB;' in which ATC responded; 'Traffic crossing at 7;300 FT.' We cleared the C-172 by only 200 FT; which was WAY too close! After clearing the conflict; we were re-cleared down to 6;000 FT and back direct to BAYSE. A few moments later; ATC turned us over to the next Controller and thanked us for the help. I replied; 'No problem; but that was too close for comfort!'




Synopsis: A Corporate aircraft descending on the VALRE Arrival to HPN took evasive action to a TCAS RA during a near miss at about 7;500 FT.
Date: 201211
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: B777-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Air Carrier X departed Runway 4L. Air Carrier Y was landing on Runway 4R. The preceding aircraft on Runway 4R did not clear the runway so I sent Air Carrier Y around. Air Carrier X was departing on the SID which had him on a 060 heading climbing to 3;000 FT. I gave Air Carrier Y a 080 heading to maintain 2;000 FT. Air Carrier X was at 3;000 FT so I turned Air Carrier Y to a 040 heading to maintain 2;000 FT. As stated in N JO 7210.819-6 When proper spacing cannot be achieved; the go-around maneuver is used to de-conflict aircraft. When IFR aircraft are involved and visual separation; either Tower applied or pilot applied cannot be achieved; controllers must issue instructions to establish separation. This could be in the form of vertical separation; passing or diverging separation or vectors to achieve other approved separation. Where wake turbulence may be a factor controllers must exercise their best judgment and issue control instructions to minimize its impact with the proximity of TEB arrivals just to the west of EWR departures and LGA just to the east of EWR departures there is very little room to do anything but what I did during this event. A recent change of altitudes for the SID from 2;500 FT to 3;000 FT has helped us to obtain altitude separation while staying above the MVA. Unless the TEB approach are moved further west and the LGA arrivals are moved further east; this maybe the only fix that is possible. We have had some cases of WAKE REMNANT events at EWR. We work by the rules set further in the 7110.65; and I can not find my responsibilities for WAKE REMNANT. If WAKE REMNANT is something that is of concern; can we please have a definition of it and some sort of standard separation put in the 7110.65. Once again I reference the above: Where wake turbulence may be a factor controllers must exercise their best judgment and issue control instructions to minimize its impact.




Synopsis: EWR Controller described a go around event; the Controller questioning the 'wake remnant' separation standard; noting no rules are currently described in any ATC Directives.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Air Carrier X had just landed Runway 19 in DCA. We were cleared to line up and wait. Air Carrier X was exiting the runway and we were cleared for take off. As soon as we could visually see Air Carrier X was clear of Runway 19 we started to depart. For whatever reason; Air Carrier X decided to stop immediately after their aircraft cleared the runway however it was still showing an alert on the ground surveillance RADAR in ATC because they did not pull off far enough. ATC told us to abort take off; but we were already at V1 and had insufficient runway to reject the take off. We continued without incident and there was never any question on separation. When we landed; I spoke to the Tower Supervisor who indicated that it was not our fault in anyway. He also stated that they had the separation with Air Carrier X and they believe it was a malfunction of the electronic runway incursion system. ATC should make sure that all aircraft pull completely off the active runway before issuing a take off clearance.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: Air Carrier departure from DCA elected to continue take off because of V1 speed even though an abort instruction was issued by ATC because of a slow exiting previous landing aircraft.
Date: 202009
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight phase: Other General Ramp
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Other Breakroom
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Company is requiring disinfectant spray 3 times a week in break-rooms and other areas. I asked that this task take place at a time where there are no employees present at those areas. They refused because they did not want to assign someone to spray or hire a company to complete the task outside operation hours. These chemicals while disinfecting we have no Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on them. They can be possibly toxic due to use of Clorox.  We are having our lunches and that is not supposed to be sprayed.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported company is spraying the break-rooms and other areas while personnel are still in the area.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Flap Control (Trailing & Leading Edge)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported Aircraft X ZZZ-ZZZ1 advised ATC after doing a go around.The ZZZ1 ramp agent called to say that Aircraft X was doing a go around. I contacted the ZZZ1 Tower and they said the crew was talking to Approach Control. I asked our ATC coordinator to contact them and he confirmed the crew had advised ATC. I informed the Supervisor; the Duty Officer and the Recovery Specialist. I printed up the DG manifest and faxed it to the ZZZ1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting and gave a copy to Supervisor. The Captain called and confirmed the requested priority handling. He said that on approach they experienced a flap issue and a slat issue as well. They completed a go around so they could set up an approach for Runway 33L. No further issues.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Dispatcher reported sending DG report to destination Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting due to the fact that aircraft landing with a flap issue. Aircraft competed an uneventful landing.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were on arrival into ZZZ.  Autopilot was on and Profile was engaged.  Cost index was set to standard prior to descent.  After passing [an airspace fix] at 210 knots and approximately 9;100 feet; the aircraft abruptly pitched nose down and speed increased to approximately 225-230 knots.  I quickly selected 8;000 feet in the altitude preset window (required at or above altitude at [the intersection]) and Level Change on the FCP and the aircraft quickly slowed to 210 knots.  Total time of speed exceedance was about 7-10 seconds.  The remainder of the arrival was flown uneventfully in Level Change. While light turbulence could have played a small role; I am not sure why the aircraft pitched down so abruptly causing the speed increase.  All altitude restrictions were 'comfortably' made.   I have not seen this scenario before; but after discussions with other Airbus crewmembers; I learned that they have seen similar behavior at nearly the same point on this arrival.




Synopsis: A300 First Officer reports a sudden pitch over passing an airspace fix on a STAR; causing the speed to increase to 230 knots from 210 knots.  Other A300 crews have reported similar anomalies at the same location.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: With FO flying; climbing through FL300 to FL330; ADC 2 failed. Complied with QRH. After performing QRH; ATC cleared us to FL280 out of RVSM.Flight attendants were kept in the loop of partial loss of avionics.Dispatcher was notified of ADC 2 failure; complied with QRH; everything was under control and we would be contact him on ground.On descent; passengers were advised that we had lost partial avionics; everything was normal.Landed and taxied to gate without further incident. Made write-up after contacting line maintenance. Followed up a phone call to dispatcher that we were on gate and aircraft had a write-up. Initially; the cloud conditions could have been a threat. Shortly before the failure; we ascended into VMC conditions on top of cloud layers. Remaining VMC was critical until the event could be properly assessed and appropriate checklist was run to regain normal conditions through redundancy. Shortly after running the checklist; and informing ATC of return to normal operation; we were given a clearance to FL280 requiring a descent through clouds to leave RVSM altitudes. The FO remained very calm and was instrumental in properly assessing the situation. The event reinforced the need for maintaining proficient systems knowledge and also occasional review of QRH procedures. Both pilots had seen the failure in a previous training event. The Company cannot prevent mechanical failures. However; the Company (Training Department) can continue presenting training scenarios that incorporate these type failures. There were no warning or caution messages annunciated in this event on either EICAS screen. However; there were 3 red outlined box flags on the failed side; and one red outlined box around 'FD' on the normal side. Once we determined it was an ADC 2 failure; the QRH index was used for direction to Abnormal 12-7 for ADC 2 failure. The Index is an invaluable resource for quick reference and should always be emphasized.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported they experienced a failure of the Air Data Computer Number 2.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: 3DW.Airport, MO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Piper Aircraft Corp Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter VFR In IMC; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was flying to Downtown Springfield (3DW). The weather briefing I received just before my departure for the closest airport to my destination was 3000 ft and greater than 6SM. Deteriorating weather was expected. South and east of my route was showing lower ceilings and rain. 80 miles out at an altitude of 4000; the visibility was worsening and I would lower my altitude to avoid the clouds. 40 miles out with it now dark; I continued to reduce altitude to between 2100 MSL to 1900 MSL to avoid clouds. At 1900 [MSL]; I was in the clouds around 30 nm out. The airplane was equipped with an S-Tec 20 autopilot and Garmin GNS 430 (non-WAAS) GPS. The autopilot [was] on and the GPS programmed direct to 3DW. My CFI left me a voicemail around this time and I returned his call letting him know of my situation. At this time; I should have performed a 180 [turn]; but continued to think conditions would improve due to MVFR reporting from the destination airport. I failed to realize the weather reports could be inaccurate and misjudged my ability.With my CFI on the phone; I was able to program the GPS with his help for a GPS approach. I was lined up with the runway and was clear of the clouds at 500 feet AGL. I landed safely with a few bounces. I would recommend that weather reports should not be implicitly trusted and immediately turn around once or before you've exceeded your personal minimums. Flying in the clouds for non-instrumented rated pilots is much more stressful and life threatening than you could imagine. Disorientation is for real and not in your control.




Synopsis: PA28 pilot reported becaming task saturated while trying to stay VFR in IMC conditions.