elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BTL.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: SR20
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D BTL; Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Tower BTL
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While maneuvering to enter the Battle Creek Class D Airspace; we had a near-miss with traffic inbound on a straight-in approach. We were transitioning around the airport to enter the airspace in compliance with standard procedures for training at BTL. Before the incident; I was teaching the student how to use the autopilot. I looked up and saw another aircraft at our 10 o'clock and less than 1 mile; and converging. I immediately took controls and put the aircraft in a dive to avoid the traffic; and we missed by about 150 FT vertically. Without the deviation; we likely would have collided. The other traffic did not appear to see us; as they did not appear to take any evasive action. The near-miss could most likely be attributed to our distraction with the autopilot; and a lack of proper visual scan for traffic. We also have Skywatch TCAS installed; but the traffic never appeared on the display and no alerts were displayed or played. The incident also revealed complacency related to relying on the TCAS to find traffic; rather than the flight crew.




Synopsis: An SR20 Instructor took evasive action to miss another aircraft by 150 FT while flying at 2;500 FT near BTL Class D Airspace.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: An approach to Runway 27L at ORD was being flown with the autopilot on; flaps 22; in visual daylight conditions; I was pilot flying. The winds were steady at first; but during the last part of the approach (inside the marker; fully configured) they suddenly became erratic surging headwind gusts. At about 1;000 AGL; a strong; steady headwind gust was encountered; power was applied to maintain glideslope and airspeed. The pitch limit indicator appeared green; then amber; then momentarily red; setting off the stick shaker for a split second causing the autopilot to disconnect. The remaining approach was flown by hand using judicious pitch trim; and throttle inputs resulting in N1 readings between 74% and idle to try and maintain target airspeed. Target was originally REF+10; but was increased another 10;000 by the Captain after the large gust. The resulting landing was on speed; on profile; and safe.There have been times in the past when I have flown approaches in wind gusts with the autopilot on; although the wind gusts were not very severe. The event in this report contained a wind gust that was just sudden and strong enough to activate the stick shaker and cause the autopilot to disconnect. After experiencing this event; I now know the point where the shaker will activate in wind gusts and will hand fly the airplane before getting into that condition.


Second narrative: The First Officer/pilot flying responded correctly and recovered the aircraft to normal and safe seed. We continued the visual approach and conducted a landing without further incident.


Synopsis: An E-135 flight crew encountered wind shear conditions on final approach; which resulted in a momentary stick shaker. They regained control; adjusted their approach speed; and landed without further incident.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NY
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B N90
ATC / advisory: Tower EWR
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Climbing through 600 feet on the EWR 4 SID off runway 4L; the jump seater alerted us to an aircraft in close proximity to our right. We remained on runway heading and leveled off at 2000'. No go-around call was heard by any crew member on our flight. The tower controller instructed the go-around aircraft to turn right immediately.




Synopsis: Pilot reported conflict after takeoff from ERW with an aircraft executing a go-around on a parallel runway.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Recip Eng
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Military Trainer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute; Handoff / Assist
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working the D-side and there was a VFR aircraft we were giving flight following to.  The R side had already shown me a few minutes ago how uninterested he was in actually calling or being concerned about the potential for a collision with a different VFR aircraft.  So I didn't have much hope for this situation.  Aircraft X was talking to us at 075 there was a target at about 10 oclock and 1 or 2 miles at 070 converging.  Although we weren't talking to the other aircraft at 070; it was most likely Aircraft Y.  This was in a charted alert area.  These aircraft do rapid maneuvers so it is hard to call traffic sometimes.  The Aircraft Y target at 070 climbed in 1 hit from 070 to around 085 right in front of Aircraft X within maybe a mile.  That means that Aircraft Y crossed through the altitude of Aircraft X and about a mile and the R -side wasn't interested in calling the traffic.  You should watch the tapes; in my opinion it would be pretty scary to be in that aircraft expecting some level of service from ATC and getting none in that situation.  Yes; the Aircraft Y have TCAS and are pretty good at avoiding other non participating traffic but mistakes still happen and in my opinion the R-side carries a hazardous attitude towards calling traffic to VFR aircraft.Change the culture in the FAA so that supervisors do their job; and when they are aware of a situation like that; they are backed by upper management to insure that employees who have hazardous attitudes aren't allowed to work traffic or get paid for that matter until their hazardous attitude changes.  There are no amount of briefings about the importance of calling traffic to VFR's that will alone fix these types of attitudes.




Synopsis: A Jacksonville Center (ZJX) Controller describes a loss of separation when an aircraft climbs into the path of and very close to an aircraft that the R Side was controlling.
Date: 201908
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Oxygen System/Crew
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After quick donning the Captain's O2 (Oxygen) mask a malfunction occurred whereby the hose that is attached to the bib/nipple on the mask portion became detached. O2 escaped uncontained for approximately 15 sec. The crew O2 system lost 250 psi. I stopped the runaway O2 by using the 'reset' switches inside the O2 mask compartment. This could have been a more serious event if this mask failed during a Rapid Descent.




Synopsis: Flight Crew experienced failure of the Captain's Emergency Oxygen Mask during cruise.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While descending into DEN on the FRNCH 3; when we checked in with DEN Approach; our expected approach and landing runway was changed to the RNAV RNP Z 34R (from ILS 35L). As we approached DORKE; I began loading the approach and conducting the approaching briefing - failing to notice that VNAV had switched from VNAV PATH to VNAV SPD. It was just as we neared DORKE (At or Below 17000 FT - At or Above 15000 FT) that I noticed that we were about 800 feet above the VNAV Path and nearing DORKE. I deployed the speed brakes; but we passed DORKE at 17500 FT - 500 FT too high.




Synopsis: B737NG Captain reported failure to make a crossing restriction on the RNAV RNP Z 34R approach to DEN.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Tower, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: 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 Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure; Airport
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Coming into LGA; we were given the expressway visual. We were told to report the towers. I; the pilot monitoring; told ATC we had the towers in sight. We were then cleared for the expressway visual and told to cross them at 2;500 feet. We complied and then made the base turn at 1;000 feet per the guidance on the briefing page. I then asked approach if we were to switch over to tower; he said yes. Switch to tower.Once I switched I heard tower saying our call sign; I have a low altitude alert on you. I responded 'correcting'. The Tower then cleared us to land. We were stable and on glidepath according to the snowflake. The pilot flying then corrected his glide path to above the snowflake. We landed without incident.The expressway visual to 31 in LGA is a threat. The pilot flying did a great job configuring early. When flying this approach I will stay above the snowflake guidance.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer as the pilot monitoring; reports being issued a low altitude alert by LGA Tower during the base turn on the Expressway Visual to Runway 31. The Captain was following the 'snowflake' and the approach did not seem low to the crew.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While performing the visual approach; I descended sooner than was prescribed on the approach chart. I descended to maintain 900 feet at 4 DME from the VOR instead of at 3 DME. Because of this I received both a GPWS 'TERRAIN' caution and a notification by ATC that we were too low. After our flight; the Captain and I debriefed the event and found that the 900 feet label is positioned rather close to the 4 DME label although it has an arrow pointing to the 3 DME label. Unable to look at the approach chart for too long because I was flying the aircraft; I quickly associated 900 feet with 4 DME instead of 3 DME and planned to descend to 900 feet earlier than I should have.Events like this can be prevented in the future by taking note of descent rate and angle while on the approach and calling out and verifying altitudes at specific fixes or distances while on the approach. The approach plate itself can also be altered by repositioning some of the altitude/distance labels to make things a little clearer and prevent possible confusion.


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


Synopsis: The flight crew of an Embraer ERJ-175 reported that they descended too rapidly when they received a EPGWS obstacle alert and a call from Tower to say they were too low.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZME.ARTCC, TN
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZFW
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was on R21 which sits next to R20. There was one aircraft in ZFW42's airspace climbing out of approximately FL340 for FL390. ZFW had an opposite direction head on targets merging aircraft that was descending out of approximately FL385 about 30 miles away. I assumed that ZFW was providing separation. I made several comments to the R20 controller that certainly they were not really trying to swap these two aircraft's altitudes. I said 'certainly they have them stopped off vertically'. R20 said; 'no they are really doing that.' I again said I thought they must have them stopped and R20 said that he was talking to the aircraft climbing to FL390. I asked how they were separated and he responded that he had expedited his aircraft and that's all he could do. The aircraft were approximately 15 miles and still on the wrong side of each other vertically. I asked why no one was turning? No traffic was called by the R20 controller and no attempt at coordination with ZFW was made. No action was taken besides expediting a high altitude climb in hot weather conditions. Vertical separation was achieved just outside 5 miles with no positive control of the situation or real attempts to separate these two head on aircraft. Both the ZFW and R20 controllers should have the situation reviewed with them and given training on how to provide positive separation especially in head on situations.




Synopsis: ZME ARTCC Controller reports of a situation that was observed and he started to question what was going on. One aircraft was being worked by ZFW and the other by another sector in his Center. Both controllers did not communicate as to what the other was doing. One Controller talking to one of the aircraft had his aircraft expedite its climb but made no attempt to turn away from the other aircraft. Positive control was not maintained but separation was not lost.
Date: 201512
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: Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climbout; heard several loud bangs; looked out porthole while in J/S at 3R; saw fire and smelled something burning. Passengers screamed and started to move away from window. Plane was shaking and we never gained altitude. I told them to stay seated and waited for instructions from cockpit. Normal landing; debriefed by pilots and Supervisor and then released.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported landing shortly after experiencing a mechanical issue during climbout.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Workload; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During climb out; we were passing about 11;700 feet MSL when we heard a pop and I noticed that the Captain's L2 side window had shattered. While the internal pane appeared to be holding; the outer pane had completely shattered and it was impossible to tell if the middle pane was damaged. We immediately leveled off and informed ATC. We completed the appropriate QRH procedure. The Captain coordinated with Dispatch and decided to divert to a nearby 	Maintenance station. All normal checklists were completed and a normal landing was made on Runway 24. The gross weight of the landing was 138;400 pounds which resulted in an overweight landing. We touched down at 129 knots in the touchdown zone and normal brake application began at 60 knots. During the arrival; we received a Dispatch message advising us to declare an emergency due to the overweight landing; which we did. However; after arrival at the gate; we reviewed the AOM; which indicates that an overweight landing by itself does not require an emergency to be declared.




Synopsis: A B737-700 Captain's siding window outer panel shattered during climb. After completing the QRH procedure the crew diverted to a nearby Maintenance station where a normal overweight landing was completed.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Shortly after takeoff received 4 chime call from FAs. Strong burning electrical odor reported throughout cabin. [Advised ATC] and requested immediate return to [departure airport]. Ran partial Smoke/Fire/Fumes checklist through pulling Recirculation Fan; Passenger Seat; and Internet CBs. Galley Power turned off. Non-overweight landing [ensued] and checked by ARFF for hot-spots. Returned to gate. Fumes were dissipating prior to landing. Source unknown. Logbook entry made.


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


Synopsis: MD-80 flight crew reported returning to the departure airport after being advised of a 'burning electrical odor' in the cabin.