elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approaching ROPPR on the COWBY 8 with the LNAV and VNAV engaged and the autopilot on; we encountered a wake turbulence event. The aircraft rolled right approximately 35-40 degrees and pitched up. After disengaging the autopilot and rolling wings level the aircraft had climbed to 7400 FT. We immediately notified ATC of the wake turbulence event. (Other carrier) was behind us and also had a rolling event.


Second narrative: Upon departing on the COWBY 8 we encountered wake turbulence near ROPPR intersection. We were in LNAV/VNAV PATH just about to level at 7000 FT. The aircraft rolled about 35-40 degrees while the autopilot was engaged; and while correcting we crossed ROPPR at about 7400 FT and advised ATC of the event.


Synopsis: B737-700 flight crew reported overshooting an altitude restriction departing LAS following a wake turbulence encounter.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: HIO.Airport, OR
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 3/4
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D HIO
ATC / advisory: Tower HIO
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The field was IFR and visibility was 3/4SM and ceiling Overcast at 300 feet. A Pilatus (PC-12) was inbound on the ILS talking to the local controller. I advised the local controller that he was really low a little over six miles out. The local controller issued a low altitude alert and I advised the local controller that the aircraft was continuing to descend (he was a 500 feet about five miles out). The local controller told him to execute the missed approach and start climbing. The PC-12 complied and then advised that they were going to break off and go back to [departure airport]. The local controller told him to continue on the missed approach. We properly coordinated with Portland TRACON and the TRACON controller advised that they had also had trouble with the PC-12 vectoring him inbound and they believed that it was due to lack of pilot experience.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported raising the awareness of a PC-12's low altitude on the ILS approach. Local controller issued low altitude alert; followed by clearance to execute a missed approach.
Date: 202007
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Aircraft component: Galley Furnishing
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I very infrequently fly A position; had an unaccompanied minor that was going to be a through passenger. Also concern with weather. Our FA-C had come through picking up disinfectant wipes from customers; and I had both doors. Due to COVID; FA-C was in first row for social distancing; thus only one set of eyes double checking all secure galley. Upon takeoff the trash door came open; but the trash bin did NOT move from stowage location. As soon as it was safe I secured the door; with NO EVENT OCCURRING. Basically human error.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported that during takeoff the galley trash door opened but the trash bin did not move.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LOU.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Baron 55/Cochise
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LOU
ATC / advisory: Tower LOU
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While I was 5 miles out on IFR plan on approach to Runway 24 at LOU a helicopter was cleared to cross the path to Runway 24. The helicopter asked Bowman Tower twice if they were sure that they were cleared to cross the runway. I didn't think anything about it myself. At 200 FT from ground on final; my plane had forces that felt like the entire plane was pushed down. Then I had a violent 45 degree pitch to the left and stall horn going off. I pushed the nose over thinking it was wind shear on approach. I leveled out and gained control of the plane. Within seconds my plane was in a 45 degree bank to the RIGHT. At this point I executed full power and a go-around. After regaining composure and flight attitude I noted to the Tower that I believed I had flown into wake turbulence from the helicopter that was still taxiing to the FBO. No reply came from Tower. A second radio operator queried the Tower if I had stated the wake turbulence caused the issue. A Controller answered that I had stated that; but he had just came on and was not in position to see my plane. The lineman on the ground stated that he was looking for a place to run based on the visuals he saw of my plane coming pitched down toward the FBO.




Synopsis: A BE-55 pilot reported a wake vortex encounter while on approach to LOU from an air-taxiing helicopter; resulting in a temporary loss of control.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Troubleshooting; Confusion
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
When detected: Other unknown
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Logbook Entry; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Another technician and I were on a fieldtrip to work on a grounded aircraft. I removed and replaced the right pitot. One of the nut plates was stripped and I replaced it with a nut. To my understanding the nut served the same structural purpose as a nut plate.I should have verified that with Maintenance Control.


Second narrative: I thought the nut would have the same structural purpose as the nutplate and its use would not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft and I signed the RII [Required Inspection Item].


Synopsis: Two mechanics sent to an outlying airport to perform maintenance on a CRJ-700 replaced a stripped nutplate on a pitot tube mount with a simple nut and signed off the RII in error.
Date: 202012
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter function: Gate Agent / CSR
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; No Specific Anomaly Occurred Unwanted Situation
When detected: Other in terminal
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Every day for at least the last 2 months there has been a huge lack/deficiency of staffing Customer Service Representatives in the Lobby.  Even when staffing looks good at the beginning of a shift; Lobby agents will be moved by to gates; Customer Service Counters; Baggage; etc.   Management operates the lobby everyday below number of agents and moving agents to other areas just compounds this huge safety debacle!  Management continues to open Kiosks for check in and also keeps all kiosks open which does not allow for the CDC recommended 6 foot distancing as these kiosks are not 6 feet apart!!!   As our Customers check-in with their families and fellow travelers there are groups of people standing too close to each other!  Lack of agents has many times created safety issues as passengers/groups checking in line up in bunches too close to the passenger currently using a kiosk.  Also due to the continuing lack of staffing passengers are touching; grabbing and pulling agents to the kiosk they are at and need help checking in.




Synopsis: Customer Service employee reported there is a lack of proper staffing in the lobby; which makes it difficult to follow CDC social distancing recommendations as passengers bunch up in groups while waiting in line.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E N90
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were on the KORRY3 arrival but had not yet been cleared to descend via the KORRY3. I queried ATC as we were beginning to be high on the arrival. They cleared us to descend via the KORRY3 arrival and the First Officer (FO) selected 10;000 feet on the altitude preselect as the hard altitude and began a steep descent of over 2500 FPM to comply with the restriction at KORRY. ATC then changed the clearance to descend via the KORRY3 arrival except maintain 12;000 feet. The FO selected this new altitude and continued the steep descent anticipating clearance to 10;000 feet.At this time ATC began talking with a VFR aircraft that was in the arrival corridor at 11;500. The VFR aircraft agreed to turn off the track at ATC's suggestion. New York then re-cleared us to descend via the KORRY3 arrival so the FO set 10;000 feet again on the altitude pre-select. We were now showing a solid TCAS blue target for the VFR aircraft in question and shallowed the descent as it looked as though there was a possible conflict. We also began looking outside to see the aircraft but it was below a broken cloud deck. We then realized we would miss the hard altitude at KORRY and steepened the descent. We still missed the crossing restriction by one or two miles. ATC did not say anything.In retrospect; I should have told the FO to concentrate on flying the arrival (as we knew it was tight to make the KORRY crossing restriction) and I should have focused on possible aircraft conflict. Instead we both focused on the threat and neglected the arrival. If all else failed; we could have complied with a RA if it had happened.


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


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported that on descent to LGA on the KORRY3 arrival they slowed their descent due to VFR traffic and did not make the crossing restriction.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ACT.Airport, TX
Aircraft: Chancellor 414A / C414
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: A C414 had been taxed to Runway 1 for IFR departure. The active runway was Runway 1. While holding short; the C414 asked for a Runway 32 departure. I restated the winds; (which were favoring Runway 32 at that moment); and confirmed with the C414 that he was indeed requesting Runway 32. The pilot said affirmative. I transmitted taxi instructions; saying 'C414; Runway 32 taxi via taxi North on Runway 1; then B2; B3.' The pilot sounded confused; and asked if Runway 32 was just in front of him. I said yes; and then explained that the two runways were once connected; but were no longer; so that he couldn't taxi straight across to it. I made another transmission to another aircraft.  The next transmission I received from the C414 was clear and confusing; but I clearly heard the pilot say he was going; and that he was cleared for take off. I never used the word 'take off' to him. I looked at him quickly; and not only did he taxi straight across the approach end of Runway 1 to Runway 32; on a surface that is no longer a portion of the movement area; but he had throttled up suddenly and already had gained speed. I did not say 'cancel take off clearance;' because the closest traffic I had was not enough of a factor; and I thought cancelling his take off could be potentially unsafe. I just coordinated with Low RADAR Approach for a release; even though the aircraft was airborne at this point; and control instructions for the aircraft to remain clear of a VFR aircraft under approach control I then switched the C414 to Low RADAR. I have heard from controllers that this has happened before. I would like to have the area that is no longer a movement area marked more clearly; so as to be obvious to pilots that it is not to be used for aircraft movement. Other than that; all I can think of to do is just watch more vigilantly to observe a turn in aircraft that are to be operating on Runway 1; so I can catch it more quickly if they do not correctly follow instructions.




Synopsis: ACT Tower Controller described an incursion into a non-movement area when clearing an aircraft holding short of Runway 1 for takeoff on Runway 32 with specific instructions to taxi via B2 and B3.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DFW
Aircraft component: Communication Systems
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On departure we received unbearable static briefly over our communication radios; which soon dissipated. We consulted manuals; switched to alternate radios and tried to determine source but were unable to determine the problem's source. The noise then returned even louder; affecting communications in the cockpit. Fearing that we might lose communication all together; we advised ATC that we were electing to return to the field and of the possibility of lost communication while doing so. All other systems and indications were normal so we did not declare an emergency.We were later advised by Maintenance that the situation has happened before - where ground personnel plug in underneath the aircraft and sometimes on disconnect pieces break off in side the panel. Ground personnel should carefully disconnect and or inspect headsets prior to releasing the aircraft from guidance.




Synopsis: Intermittent static on the communication radios caused the flight crew of a commuter jet to return to their departure airport for maintenance.
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Super King Air 200
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B1 Lancer
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A heavy B1 bomber; was flying on [an airway] in my sector. In the middle of the sector; the aircraft descended IFR below RADAR coverage. The last altitude I saw on the B1 was 095. ZZZ Tower called me for a release on a Super King Air 200. I told them that I had a B1 on a route near their airspace; and that I did not have that aircraft on RADAR. The Tower Controller then said to me; 'But he's a Lifeguard; he has to get out.' I then said released. After I got off the landline with ZZZ Tower; I looked again at the track coast for the B1; and it indicated that the aircraft was at 529 knots. I realized that I would not have the required non-RADAR separation with the two aircraft. I called the Tower back to cancel the release; but when they answered the landline; they said that the King Air was already airborne. At that point; the King Air checked onto the frequency; and I gave the aircraft a 260 degree heading to avoid. I feel the event happened for two reasons. First; because the aircraft at ZZZ was a Lifeguard and because the Tower Controller was insistent that they get off the ground; I felt pressured not to delay their flight. The second reason is because of the location of [the airway]. It is a seldom used procedure; and I had not seen or worked [this airway] in at least 5 years. The exit point for [the airway] is in conflict with the departure procedure at ZZZ. I think that this event can be prevented from re-occurring by changing the exit point of [this airway] to a location prior to the current location; and/or changing the altitude of the route to an altitude that would keep the flight within RADAR coverage when the flight is within the vicinity of ZZZ. I also think that the event could be prevented from re-occurring by providing further guidance to ZZZ Tower about [the airway] and the difficulties it presents to the Center Controller when the route is in use. This way; when the Center Controller informs the ZZZ Tower Controller that [the airway] is in use; they will not persist in requesting immediate departures.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a conflict event between a military aircraft on an IR route and an IFR Lifeguard flight departure; the reporter suggesting the IR route be adjusted a prevent future occurrences.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ZZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning Compressor
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Evacuated
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [The] air conditioner seemed to be not working but [the] compressor kicks in momentarily. [While] in flight; [the] air conditioner starts working. I calculated on how much fuel we'll buy at ZZZZ. [At] ZZZZ; [the] air conditioner was still working upon arrival. I ordered to fuel 600 liters - however; [the FBO] tried to put 600 gallons resulting [in a] top off. They refused to de-fuel [and] passengers were already at the terminal. I made [the] decision to burn some fuel at the Ramp with passengers on board.[As we were] departing ZZZZ; we loaded passengers and started engines. The air conditioner started [to] not work. Also; [the] intercom became inoperative and [the] cabin was getting really hot. We had already burned most of [the] excess fuel; so [I] figured [to] burn some on taxing and [a] little more at the end of [the] taxiway. I occasionally put [a] little more power and brakes to burn more fuel [and] occasionally released to cool the brakes. Apparently that effort wasn't enough; [as it] caused excessive heat and fire on the wheels.We started feeling bumps which I thought was [due to] flat tires. [I] stopped the aircraft and asked Tower if they could see [whether] the main tires were still inflated. Tower said [they] looked just fine. [I] tried to start [the] taxi again [and] figured it may have been bumps on the taxiway. Then; the First Officer saw fire from [the] right main tires. I called Tower for assistance and evacuated passengers.No one was hurt. The aircraft sustained major damage on the main gear and wheels. [The chain of events started with the] air conditioner issue; misunderstanding of gallons and liters at the FBO; not watching [the] fueling; misjudging about brake heating; fatigue from waking up [early] and days of moving in the summer. [Correct actions would be to] watch fueling every time; not be in a hurry and deal with the situations one by one. [I] should have de-boarded [the] passengers and went to the run-up area and burned fuel.




Synopsis: CE525B Captain reported improper procedure resulting in brake overheating and main tire fire.