elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Ramp Lead did not properly identify item 14 as dangerous goods; instead he loaded the item in pit 2 which didn't have the required 15 bags. He called after pushing the aircraft to advise he could not final; at which point I advised him item 14 which was XXXXXX. Biologicals was dangerous goods and the flight would need to gate return. The flight returned and the Ramp Lead then held off item 14. He called to advise that cargo did not properly identify the item as dangerous goods on the [load plan] which I then advised him was not correct and cargo did in fact staged it correctly and used the appropriate code. The Ramp Lead then stated he had never seen dangerous goods stage this way and why is there no pilot paperwork to which I responded this is the normal correct way to stage biologicals and that there are dangerous goods that are exempt from pilot paperwork. His response was he has never heard of dangerous goods being exempt again I informed him all of this information is in the Dangerous Goods recurrent training modules but he claims for the ramp they are there to which I informed him he was wrong.




Synopsis: Airline ramp personnel reported communication breakdown between ramp personnel and Ramp Lead regarding incorrectly loading and misidentifying Dangerous Goods in cargo pits.
Date: 201302
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Beech 1900
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A Cessna 172 and another 172 were in the traffic pattern. [An airliner] was inbound from the West for a visual approach showing 290 KTS of ground speed. MD was working Local 1 and instructed [the airliner] to make a straight in for Runway XXL and report an 8 mile final. The first 172 was on a 5 mile final for Runway XXL when the second 172 was downwind passing the numbers of Runway XXL. Instead of turning the second 172 into the 5 mile hole; the Controller extended his downwind. I thought the intent was to have the second 172 follow the airliner since he was turning base leg 8 NM North of the airport;. Instead the Controller turned the second 172 to follow the first 172. I told the Controller that wouldn't work since the airliner was still going well over 200 knots. I told the Controller to change the second 172 to Runway XXR and the Controller ended up having to send the first 172 around to have enough room to let the airliner land. The Controller didn't want me to get him/her out because it was too busy; honestly it was self-inflicted volume and complexity. I ended up opening Local 2 and getting Local 1 relieved as he/she was clearly in over his/her head. I don't agree with a check ride for certification consisting of being able to work one session of moderate traffic without an 'A1.' This breeds controllers that can squeak by under idea conditions but can't handle the traffic if any little thing doesn't go their way. Not understanding sequencing; speed control; traffic flow; etc and counting on doing everything rote and having it work out makes for some scary situations and very poor customer service. I asked him/her later what went wrong and she said that the airliner turned a 6 mile final instead of an 8 mile final. I explained that when the trailing aircraft is going nearly 5 miles per minute and the leading aircraft is going less than 2 miles per minute; 2 miles doesn't make any difference at all. I suggested that if traffic existed to take the airliner over the top of the airport and enter them on the downwind in addition to moving pattern traffic to the other runway.




Synopsis: Tower CIC described a go-around event when the Local Controller failed to noted the overtake speed of a much faster aircraft resulting in a go around clearance even after recommendations were provided by the reporter.
Date: 201201
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were initially cleared for take off by Tower Control to depart Runway 23 from CLT and fly the JACAL 6 RNAV departure procedure.  Shortly after checking in with Departure Control the Controller gave us a 300 heading direct and cleared us direct to a fix.  The Captain and I were confused by the pronunciation of the fix; we thought to be VLADY.  I asked the Controller to clarify and confirm direct to VLADY; which she did.  Shortly there after the Controller stated that we were showing north of the fix and cleared us direct to JACAL.  Upon further investigation we determined the Controller wanted us direct to GLADI a fix on the departure procedure and not VLADY a fix a little further down on our flight plan. Short cuts are great; but flying RNAV SID's as depicted allow pilots to fly what they brief.  The Controller was working another frequency at the time and was issuing an IFR clearance to an aircraft.  The division of attention my have lead to the Controller not fully hear my verbalization of VLADY.  Also having two fixes close to each other with similar names can lead to confusion and is not a good idea.


Second narrative: This was a simple case of misinterpreted instructions with two points that sounded very much alike; and which were both on our route of flight. The First Officer and I both thought we were getting an early morning shortcut and the Controller noticed our deviation quickly and issued an updated clearance. Repeat points by spelling them out phonetically whenever in doubt.


Synopsis: An ERJ170 on the CLT JACAL 6 RNAV departure was cleared to GLADI intersection but misunderstood and proceeded to VLADI intersection which was a more distant point on their flight plan. This was a similar sounding fix confusion.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EWR.Airport, NJ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B EWR
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90; Tower EWR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Conducting approach to Runway 4R. Directed to maintain 2;500 feet and intercept the final approach course. Also; told to maintain 200 KIAS until FAF (DOOIN @ 1;700 feet). We were never cleared for the approach or cleared for the visual. I configured the aircraft with gear down; flaps-1 and speed brakes extended and autopilot off in anticipation of having to 'dive'.  The First Officer; pilot monitoring; tried several times to call Approach but was blocked at each attempt. Just outside of FAF; contact was finally made with Approach who told us to contact Tower and indicated that we had been cleared for the approach when we were directed to intercept final. They did not!!! (There was [another airline] jumpseater who witnessed the approach and subsequent missed who can verify what occurred). We contacted Tower who immediately asked if we could get down. We responded no and [we] initiated a go-around at about 1;500 feet AGL.  This started the next issue. I leveled the aircraft at 1;000 feet; called for gear up; and asked for 170 KIAS. At the same time Tower told us to go to Departure and gave us a frequency switch; which was incorrect. At that point the First Officer and Jumpseater (who was very helpful as he was EWR based and immediately recognized that the frequency was incorrect) were engaged in sorting out the correct frequency. After some confusion; and a call on Guard; we sorted things out and returned for a landing.  This approach episode and subsequent missed approach issue were caused entirely by ATC. The Approach Controller 'thought' he cleared us for the approach and then we were prevented from clarifying the situation because of a congested frequency. The Tower giving us the wrong frequency for the go-around basically put us in a lost comm situation in the middle of a congested flight corridor.




Synopsis: While on approach to EWR; the TRACON failed to clear an air carrier for a Runway 4 approach. When EWR Tower was called late; the flight was too high for a stabilized approach and so executed a go-around.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower DEN
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approach was stable and uneventful through below 500 ft AGL. At that point; I let the aircraft dip below glideslope to capture three red PAPI. As the aircraft passed through 100 feet AGL; I noticed four red PAPI and began to adjust pitch and power. As the threshold neared; the aircraft began to be affected by the previous arrival's wake; and required control inputs as aircraft crossed the threshold to maintain path and centerline. These inputs were more significant than any inputs on the approach and began rather suddenly.My last look as we crossed the threshold had airspeed on target. I began to increase the back pressure for the flare; but the aircraft did not respond as I expected; never arrested descent; and contacted the runway before planned; resulting in a hard bounce.With the power still up; the resulting bounce was high; and I immediately called for a go around. Go around was accomplished and subsequent landing was uneventful. Thankfully; we later heard from Maintenance the aircraft inspection showed all ok.


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


Synopsis: B737NG flight crew reported a hard landing and subsequent go-around occurred following a wake turbulence encounter just before touchdown.
Date: 201406
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Procedure; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: ZNY-34 flashed me a data block on Aircraft X that showed no aircraft type; or any flight plan information; just a target descending to FL250.  I was busy with multiple sectors; and numerous aircraft.  I did not have a D-side to handle any coordination for me.  I assumed ZNY had an UTM [Unsuccessful Transmission Message] on this aircraft; as it is uncommon to have an aircraft flash without flight plan information; without any UTM; etc.  I called the Controller at ZNY-34 and advised I had no flight plan information on the data block Aircraft X; and asked if he had a UTM or any fails.  He said no.  I questioned this; as I was surprised and he said; 'No; so do you want to write it?'  I said standby; as the aircraft was still several minutes from my sector.  I went back to a few other aircraft; then I got back on the line with ZNY-34 and said; 'Go ahead; I'll write it;' and he said; 'You know what; I don't like your attitude I'm gonna spin him.'  At this point the ZNY Controller entered my airspace with Aircraft X without coordination; turned him around in a 360 turn; then entered my airspace again after descending the aircraft to FL200; violating my airspace a second time.  He refused to answer any landlines; and my Supervisor tried calling his area several times and their Supervisor would not answer the phone.  The Controller at ZNY-34's unwillingness to communicate; and provide manual coordination led to the aircraft getting delayed; and him violating my airspace twice.I recommend ZNY controllers be responsible for ensuring flight plan information passes to ZBW in a timely manner.




Synopsis: ZBW controller describes scenario where he doesn't have complete track data or a flight plan on an aircraft.  He requests information from the Controller working the aircraft who refuses to pass the information to him and violates the airspace twice with the aircraft.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Departing ZZZ and assigned the ZZZZZX departure. The departure was thoroughly briefed before flight. All waypoints checked. We went as far as setting up the engine out procedure in the secondary flight plan. After takeoff the PF began the departure. The aircraft was cleaned up; accelerated; and hand-flown. A busy time immediately after departure. Within one minute after departure and after completing the after takeoff checklist I looked at my primary display and noticed our flight path was roughly one mile west and one mile south of the left-hand initial curve of the ZZZZZ Departure. It was visual conditions and I believe the PF got distracted by maintaining visual with the terrain outside during the initial steep climbout and not focusing closely enough on the departure course line. I did not catch the deviation initially with the workload and all happening within a couple minutes. There was never any issue with terrain or traffic. ATC stated after this initial departure climb that we were off our course; and I acknowledged this. Both myself the PNF; and the PF have flown very little in the last 3 months. I believe for the PF that this was his first leg in a few months. For myself; I've had 3 legs in the last 3.5 months. There is something to be said for a small lack of proficiency that this created; and not catching the error with a faster scan or recognition.  Another factor was the PF wanting to get the feel of the plane again and to wanting to hand-fly a busy DP in mountainous terrain.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a track heading deviation and cited lack of flying as a contributing factor.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: There were two issues with during the pushback. Upon requesting push clearance gate [ramp control] told us to push for spot X but disconnect abeam the gate. As we were pushing I noticed we were turning well wide of the spot X line and it appeared we were headed for the spot Y line. The Captain began communicating with the tug driver to inform him of his error. As the Captain began to communicate with the tug driver gate [ramp control] called me to tell me we were on the wrong line. I told them we were aware and trying to relay the message to the tug driver who didn't seem to understand what we were telling him.  [Ramp control] told us it was okay and that we could disconnect where we were; which was now on the spot Y line. The Captain told the tug driver ramp wants us to disconnect here now. The next communication we received from the tug driver was to 'set brakes'. We noticed we were still rolling forward so the Captain said we can't because he is still towing us forward. The only reply was another 'set brakes'. We explained we still cannot set them he's towing us. Through several more exchanges we realized we're no longer connected to the tug. The Captain then applied the brakes causing an abrupt stop. During that time I was looking at the tug and it was moving backwards (away from aircraft) at the same speed we were rolling forward which visually appeared as if we were being towed. There was a complete lack of standard communication from the tug driver causing confusion. Once we had brakes set and were officially disconnected the flight attendants called to ask what happened and that they almost fell over during the briefing.




Synopsis: B737NG First Officer reported several deviations from SOP during pushback that posed safety risks.
Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: It was after sunset when Aircraft X landed and was rolling out. My Ground Controller was busy with multiple tasks; including a clearance he was about to start reading. I gave the taxiway a quick scan and decided I was going to exit Aircraft X in front of his ramp and have him taxi into parking while monitoring ground (instead of stopping; calling and waiting). I loudly said to Ground Control 'Aircraft X to parking with me'. The ground controller working at the time is one of the best we have and I assumed he would say something if there was a problem. I told Aircraft X to 'turn right at [taxiway]; cross 31R and taxi to parking via A; monitor ground point niner on your way in'. Aircraft X crossed 31R partially then did not continue on to the A Taxiway. I heard Aircraft X say out of Ground Control's speaker 'hey; Ground; did you know about this Cessna?' I looked up to see a taxing Cessna pass in front of Aircraft X; left to right. My Ground Controller was obviously upset. Aircraft X taxied to parking without further incident.At [tower] we have a cultural practice of holding on to aircraft to parking; if it is close to the runway exit point. (taxiing aircraft to parking on tower frequency) It is generally accepted and most controllers here do it; under the premise that it provides better service. A few are against it and now I see why. It was dark when this occurred; which further increased the chances of the taxiing Cessna being missed with a quick scan of the taxiway.I have now joined the ranks of the few controllers who won't taxi them in on ground. I plan to bring this up at the next local safety council meeting and advise against the practice to my coworkers.




Synopsis: Local Controller issued taxi instructions to an aircraft instead of switching the aircraft to Ground Control frequency to receive the taxi instructions. Reporter states this is a common practice at this facility in certain circumstances. Ground Control had traffic taxiing in confliction with the aircraft Local Control issued taxi instructions to. The pilot noticed the traffic and stopped on the taxiway and asked the Tower if they knew about the conflicting traffic.