elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: UNV.Airport, PA
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Aircraft; Airport; Staffing
Primary problem: Staffing

Narrative: Due to an MEL; we were operating unpressurized and requested a gradual descent from the New York Center controller. He obliged by giving us 1;000 feet lower and clearing us direct to the IAF for the RNAV 6. Shortly after; he cleared us to cross the IAF 100feet above the charted altitude at that point and cleared us for the approach. I informed the controller that we would be descending in the published holding pattern at the IAF to facilitate the gradual descent for unpressurized flight. The controller did not respond. I made the same transmission when we arrived at the IAF and the controller said 'approved as requested.' We made one turn in the holding pattern before reaching the published altitude +100 Feet. We then proceeded inbound. The controller reached out to us to switch us to advisory frequency. We made our initial CTAF transmission on a 5 mile final. Airport operations informed us there were men and equipment on the runway. I responded that we were on a 3 mile final and asked if they could clear the runway. We mentally prepared for a go around at this point. Just before we reached the LNAV/VNAV DH; airport operations transmitted that all men and equipment were clear of the runway. We completed an uneventful landing. As we exited the runway; I transmitted on CTAF that we were clear of the runway. Airport operations transmitted to us to ask Center 'had advised us of the 15 minute Prior Permission Request (PPR).' We told him that we had not been advised. He responded that they had a NOTAM in effect. We did not respond. We did; however check the automated weather broadcast again. The NOTAM was not mentioned. When I contacted Center to cancel IFR; the controller was also unaware of the NOTAM.


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


Synopsis: After a commuter flight crew landed at UNV and were taxiing clear of the runway; they were queried by operations personnel if Center 'had advised us of the 15 minute PPR.' They told him that they had not been advised. They were unable to find the NOTAM and the Center controller was also unaware of the NOTAM.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PGV.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZDC
ATC / advisory: Center ZDC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Flight Engineer; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: As has happened several times recently; when arriving into the airport area at PGV; we began experiencing severe interference on the Washington Center frequency (123.85) and the local Unicom frequency (122.8). The signal sounded like it was from a radio station.  When we reported it to the Center; they said they knew about it and offered another frequency (135.3) as an alternative.  As we had the airport in sight by then; we just cancelled IFR and went in under VFR; entered the pattern; and landed. The interference on 122.8 was so severe that I was unable to communicate with my passenger on the interphone and would have been unable to hear any other traffic on the Unicom frequency. This is a truly unsafe situation that has been allowed to continue in this location for at least a couple of months that I know of and perhaps longer. This interference is compromising aviation safety and needs immediate attention.




Synopsis: General aviation pilot reported severe interference from a commercial radio station in the vicinity of PGV airport affecting communication with Washington Center and PGV Unicom.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Rain; 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Exited Penetrated Airspace; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While conducting practice stalls with a student; the student applied incorrect inputs and froze on the controls. The aircraft began to enter a spin to the left and I immediately applied inputs to recover. The stall/spin was recovered by 800 FT AGL and after stabilizing the airplane in a climb; I gave the controls back to the student and instructed him to climb straight ahead to 2;000 FT. After the confusion; coupled with the low visibility and rain; I realized the heading and altitude we were at would take us into the class C airspace surrounding ZZZ. I instructed the student to immediately turn and exit the airspace. We continued the flight normally and landed without incident at the original airport of departure. The weather conditions coupled with the startle factor of the student putting the aircraft into a spin caused a momentary lapse of situational awareness of where the aircraft was in relation to the nearby airspace.




Synopsis: General aviation flight instructor reported an airspace violation following an unexpected spin induced by the student pilot.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 12
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Arriving on the KEPEC arrival we were given a heading after KEPEC and 8100' altitude. Previous [aircraft] cleared RNAV 7R (which we don't have) along with approach radio terrain clearances on in to 7R from the north. We were asked if we could see the field; we could. We were cleared the visual about 20 miles out. I placed a VNV 10 mi final with a 3 degree GS for 7R. Making a right dogleg to final and descending on that path and still ~12 mi) Southwest at 6;000' we received a 2500' call followed by 'Caution Terrain'. I was concentrating on managing the approach and keeping 7R in sight. I climbed to clear the warning. We were unable to see terrain in the dark desert headed into the bright lights of LAS. After I climbed the controller asked if I could see the terrain. This is not a good setup. At the time we had a tail wind and were going to land with a 15 kt direct crosswind. None of this alone makes an incident. I feel this is a setup by LAS Approach. KEPEC is not a good position to clear for the visual even up to about 15 miles out at night some guidance is required. I also wish we had an RNAV to 7R.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reports being offered a night visual approach to Runway 7R at LAS from over KEPEC; and accepting. During the maneuver a terrain warning is annunciated and the reporter pulls up to silence the warning before continuing.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Airbus Industrie Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Aircraft component: Hydraulic System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Just after pushback at LAX we started both engines and as soon as the second engine was started we had multiple triple chimes on the ECAM with warnings of all flight control loss along with all Hydraulics loss and many other warnings going off to the point we had to emergency cancel the aural warnings for me to be able to communicate with the First Officer (FO). We started looking at every switch and circuit breaker to see if we could find the source of the problem and all switches and circuit breakers look normal. I was unable to steer the aircraft when turning the tiller and we also were concerned about the loss of brake pressure so we immediately started the APU and shut down the engines. After being towed back onto the gate a maintenance person came onto the aircraft and stated he had never seen this before on the Airbus. After several minutes he found the three Hydraulics switches (these are maintenance switches not air crew) had been pushed off and left off by someone. He left to find out why. After approximately 20-30 min. he returned to tell us that 'as of right now no one knows who or why those switches were turned off and left off'. I asked several more questions and he didn't have any answers so I told him without those answers I would not take the aircraft and he said he completely understood and that there would be an investigation as to who and why the switches were left off. My concern was why they were left off and what else on the aircraft was left in an unsafe position. Without these answers there was no way for us to determine that the aircraft was airworthy.




Synopsis: After engine start following pushback; crew of an Airbus experienced the loss of all three hydraulic systems. The crew started the APU; shut down both engines; and had the aircraft towed back into the gate. Maintenance personnel discovered that all three maintenance hydraulic system switches had been left in the OFF position.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ASE.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Turbulence; Windshear; 7
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Gulfstream G250
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class D ASE; Class E ASE
ATC / advisory: Tower ASE
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Weather; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Balked landing due to windshear.  Vectors out of Aspen valley with clearance to climb to 16;000.  Vectored into traffic on approach and terrain.  Flying pilot exceeded cleared altitude three times. ATC attempted to stop climb at 13;000 but we were already above that altitude. Subsequently given 16;000 and then 17;000; each of which the pilot flying exceeded.  RA [TCAS Resolution Advisory] was due to poor vectors as was ground proximity warning.




Synopsis: Following a rejected landing due to windshear the flight crew of a Gulfstream was given vectors during which a TCAS RA and an EGPWS terrain warning were received.
Date: 201511
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR22
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Robinson R22
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: ZZZ is a pretty busy uncontrolled field with a lot of flight training going on; both fixed and rotor wing. I was getting ready to embark on a long cross country trip back to my home [airport]. I filed my IFR flight plan to pick up the clearance once airborne. I did a thorough preflight and run up and observed two targets on my traffic avoidance device. One had just departed and was on the crosswind leg; the other had just turned downwind. As I approached the entrance to the runway I turned my aircraft 45 degree to the right for the best possible view of any base or downwind traffic. No traffic was observed. I then announced; '[Airport name] traffic. Cirrus departing runway 30 left turn out; [Airport name].' As I was climbing out the pilot (possibly instructor in the R-22 scolded me and said I almost hit him. I explained that I had looked for the traffic on base and final and did not see anyone and that I had announced I was entering the runway and departing runway 30. He stated that he had called his position on base and final and that this is a very busy airport etc. I explained I certainly did not hear his announcement and that I would not knowingly launch in front of him if I had. As I turned from crosswind to downwind on my climb out he was just exiting the runway. This leads me to question how close we really were. I fly [several hundred hours] per year and I take this type of allegation seriously. The last thing I want to do is have a collision with another aircraft. Lesson learned; see and avoid is a two pilot equation; stay away from helicopters; and airfields that host a lot of training.




Synopsis: The pilot of a SR22 reported an airborne conflict during departure from a non-towered airport. He attempted to take all steps necessary to see and avoid traffic in the pattern; but was advised by another pilot that the conflict had taken place.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Aircraft component: Flap/Slat Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On routine ILS practice approach; I executed a low approach and moved to climb and retract the drag flaps. The flaps remained deflected; and the electric switch did not activate the flap motor as expected. Troubleshooting; including resetting the flap circuit breaker; did not bring improvement; so flight was continued to the aircraft's home airport due to sufficient climb performance; with flight being conducted entirely in the white airspeed arc. During the flight; I continued to attempt troubleshooting to bring the flaps up; but did not succeed. On the landing roll-out; as a checklist item and also out of a sense that maybe the lower airspeed or 'bump' from landing - though it was a very soft landing - may be a variable that could bring about change - I was surprised to find that the flaps did indeed retract. On taxi and prior to shutdown; I found the flaps to repeatedly behave correctly on further tests up and down.A similar event occurred about a year ago; with our maintenance shop considering that frost inside the flap mechanism could have been a factor or cause. I always doubted that; and believe that due to above-freezing temperatures today; we can rule that out. Out of abundance of caution; I then grounded the plane so our maintenance shop could inspect.




Synopsis: M20J pilot reported the electric switch did not activate the flap motor during flap retraction. After landing the flaps operated normally.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: During approach; controller vectored flight no more than 4 nm behind a heavy B767.  We had a 170 knot speed assignment to the FAF.  By the time preceding aircraft landed we were probably less than 3 NM from touchdown.  At approximately 100 feet AGL; encountered violent and pronounced roll due to B767s wake.  Executed an uneventful go-around and returned for a normal landing.Memphis was experiencing strong quartering tailwinds aloft until below 1;000 feet above TDZE with a slight quartering tailwind (220/5 - for RWY 36L) at the runway.  ATC did not fully account for these conditions and possibly miss-applied RECAT.  Spacing might have been OK if not for the wind conditions.  ATC needs to be a bit less aggressive with their spacing.




Synopsis: Captain reported encountering 'violent and pronounced roll' at 100 feet AGL from a preceding B767 wake on final to MEM. Reporter stated ATC 'needs to be a bit less aggressive with their spacing'.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TEB.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: M-20 J (201) / Allegro
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B EWR; Class D TEB
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During departure from TEB with clearance for the RUUDY 4 departure procedure; HAAYS Intersection; I mistakenly started a turn towards HAAYS after passing RUUDY without receiving vectors. Shortly after the turn towards HAAYS; ATC advised about the heading mismatch. At this point I realized that I should have continued on heading 280 and expect vectors to HAAYS. ATC pointed out traffic in front of me which I reported in sight and no action was required to maintain visual separation.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reports turning direct to HAAYS after passing RUUDY on the RUUDY4 departure from TEB.  ATC advises him of his error.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Aircraft: Regional Jet CL65; Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: B747 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On the arrival into Atlanta we experience a severe wake turbulence event. Aircraft banked 45 degrees each side. I clicked the autopilot off and counteracted the rolling motion with full opposite aileron. First Officer communicated to ATC we needed to level off at 6000 ft due to wake turbulence. ATC then communicated that a 747 had just been through there landing on the parallel. We could see the 747 ahead and [to our] right landing; as well as a company CRJ 200 12 o'clock. In proper separation between us and the heavy considering current wind conditions; additional separation or off-setting the arrival course could have helped. 'Caution wake turbulence' would have prepared us.




Synopsis: CRJ Captain reported experiencing a 'severe' wake turbulence event on arrival into ATL in trail of a B747.