elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DCA.Airport, DC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: Tower DCA
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: This [report] is due to a possible hard landing while on Runway 33 in DCA. The approach to Runway 33 looked stable to me. I was on speed during final and we hit some wake turbulence from a departing [Embraer] 170 or 175 aircraft that rotated right in front of us on Runway 4. It wasn't much; but enough to roll the aircraft slightly left and right. This happened between 30 - 40 feet AGL. I started my landing flare immediately after clearing the turbulence and reduced the trust levers to idle as if it was a normal landing. Right before touchdown I felt the bottom drop out on us. I had checked around 2 seconds prior and I was on airspeed then as I transitioned to outside. The landing was very firm; much more so than either of us are used to. The struts did compress and extend prior to settling but we definitely did not bounce. Neither the Captain nor I noticed the VSI on touchdown.  We did not believe that landing met the qualifications to be considered 'hard' by the FOM. As such; this landing was not written up as a hard landing in the AML. During the walk around I did not see anything abnormal. As it wasn't written up; neither of us believed it was a hard landing. This [report] is in response to a phone call informing us of passengers saying the landing was hard and there were possible injuries. No one said anything to me as they exited the aircraft; I thanked them for flying. I'm still thinking about this. I know I was on speed; the turbulence was over during the landing flare so I don't think that caused it. I may have reduced the power too soon. It felt like a normal approach and landing until the very end.




Synopsis: CRJ-700 First Officer reported flying through wake turbulence on final; resulting in a hard landing.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot/Static Ice System
Component problem: Design; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Workload; Troubleshooting; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The following occurred in order at FL 390 in IMC conditions:1. IAS disagree (First Officer IAS showed 100 KIAS.  Captain HUD and Standby all normal)2. Engine one and two EEC faults3. Altimeter disagree (First Officer altimeter off by 450'. Captain HUD and Standby all normal)We completed all three QRH checklists in the order of occurrence. At the time of the event we were IMC. Upon completion of all QRH checklists; we were VMC and the First Officer's IAS and altimeter returned to normal. Dispatch was notified via ACARS.I am filing this report because we never notified ATC of altimeter error in RVSM airspace (due to being preoccupied with the three QRH checklists and the fact that the First Officer's altimeter returned to normal).




Synopsis: While IMC at FL390 both B737-700 engine EEC's faulted; the First Officer's airspeed and altimeter dropped while the Captain's instruments remained normal. When VMC conditions returned; the faults were removed.
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: D01.TRACON, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D APA
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Airspace Violation 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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: There were wide spread GPS outages in the Denver area. I was flying westbound remaining outside the Bravo to get to ZZZ. Using only dead reckoning at night and VOR navigation I was trying to avoid various airspace. While intercepting a radial that should have kept me outside of the nearby APA Class D airspace; I overshot the intercept and flew through the corner of the APA airspace. Denver Approach saw this and gave me a vector to get out of the APA airspace and continue toward ZZZ.




Synopsis: Light aircraft pilot reported an airspace violation occurred when he deviated from the assigned course.  Widespread GPS outage in the DEN area was cited as a contributing factor.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Other 107
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Other UAV training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: UNICOM ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Workload; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person; Person Ground Personnel
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The UAS Company has ZZZ's permission to conduct UAS Operators out of ZZZ Airport. Our operations are always South of Runway XX/ XY and at or below 400 feet AGL to comply with Part  XX7 Regulations. We were conducting UAS Training out of ZZZ. We were in the air in cruise flight just south of Runway XX; staying clear of the departing and departure ends of all Runways. Mid-afternoon; [Aircraft Y] made a call mentioning he was coming into landing Runway XY. The individual did an extremely low pass down Runway XY near the aircrafts max speed. Everything was ok; until the individual decided to make an immediate left turn towards us which departed the runway heading and cut short of the end of the runway. At that point; we tried to direct the UAS the best we could to stay clear of the aircraft; but there was little to no time to do so. The individual did a 60 to 90 degree bank maneuver over our operations around 300 AGL to 500 AGL and came extremely close to our UAS which weighs around 15 lbs. Where we operate; there should be no manned aircraft in this area as it is not a part of the standard traffic pattern. The individual also knows that there is UAS operations in that area and that people are in the area.




Synopsis: UAV ground crew reported a NMAC with low flying aircraft that was not flying the airport traffic pattern.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Aircraft component: Cockpit Window
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Diverted
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Recovering from a spin during spin training in a nose low attitude at 4;200 feet MSL at approximately 135 KIAS; the windscreen of the aircraft ejected off of the aircraft. The instructor pilot immediately took the controls and angled the aircraft towards the closest airport for landing. During the descent the instructor pilot slowed aircraft to limit drag and noise in cockpit and assessed the aircraft for further damage. Aircraft was set up for a straight in approach. Aircraft landed safely without further incident.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported that while providing spin training; the windscreen departed the aircraft during the spin recovery.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ABQ.TRACON, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: TRACON ABQ
Aircraft component: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Aircraft began uncommanded left turn over FRIHO at 15;000 ft; during frequency change from center to approach control. I told the pilot flying to disconnect the autopilot and return to course. Upon checking in with approach; he notified us we were off course; most likely due to GPS jamming activity and instructed us to fly a heading. Maximum course deviation was about 30 degrees. NOTAMS were issued that GPS jamming was in effect in vicinity of ABQ.[The likely] cause was GPS jamming was in effect. The autopilot had a previous maintenance action. I was initially unsure if the uncommanded left bank was due to autopilot failure; or something else. This is the first time I have experienced any effects of GPS jamming on my aircraft navigation systems.[Captain] suggested; next time GPS jamming at ABQ is present; I will fly the FRIHO1 arrival using VOR/DME instead of GPS.


Second narrative: While on descent into ABQ; and arriving at waypoint FRIHO the autopilot initiated an uncommanded turn to the left; as I realised that we had initiated the turn the wrong way; I disconnected the autopilot and turned back to course; the controller realized what had happened and gave us a heading to follow; he stated that there was GPS outages and that it had happened to several other aircraft. The flight continued to a safe landing with no other problems[Pilot flying speculated the] Autopilot [malfunction cause the turn]. Additionally; suggestedcould probably fly this arrival using VOR navigation; if GPS outages keep happening in the area.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported uncommanded turn during initial approach. Pilot flying disconnected which had previous autopilot maintenance issues.  Additionally; Approach control informed flight crew of NOTAMS regarding GPS jamming in effect.
Date: 201812
Location: MYAM, FO
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Cloudy
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Airport; ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Company Policy; Procedure; Manuals
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Going into MHH; Miami Center told us to report the field in sight so we could cancel IFR and descend VFR into MHH. We informed them that there was a cloud layer below us and that we would not be able to descend visually. They transferred us to Nassau's Center for a descent. We called Nassau. They told us to descend to 2;000 [feet]. They informed us that we would lose radio communication with us below 1500 [feet]; and that we would need to cancel before descending below 2;000 [feet]. We descended to 2;000 [feet]. At that point; we were below the clouds and were able to see the field. We tried to contact Nassau Center several times to cancel IFR. We were unable to reach them. We continued to the field and landed normally under VFR conditions. After we parked; we called Dispatch to have them contact Nassau Center to close out our flight plan.Radio reception is very poor at MHH. Center cannot clear you for the RNAV approach. (I'm curious why they exist; then?) The ceiling was somewhat low.No real suggestions. Maybe a little more guidance in the company pages. They say you will need to climb to 7;000 [feet] to contact Center and get your IFR clearance from MHH. They also say you will not be dispatched to MHH with weather/forecast less than 2;000 [feet]. They don't really talk about what happens with a ceiling between 2;000 [feet] and 7;000 [feet].




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported a lack of guidance in the company manual with regards to picking up an IFR clearance at MHH when the ceiling is between 2;000ft and 7;000ft.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TUS.Airport, AZ
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: Parked
Airspace: Class C TUS
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While planning the in flight functional check; IFC; for a dual engine change; the Regional Controller received clearance from the Fight Operations [Manager] to use a non-check airman to complete the IFC. This Captain was a high minimums Captain. CA (Captain) and I had a brief about the flight and about the fact that he would need to taxi over for fuel due to the airport layout. At XA17 CA blocked out after fueling. Approximately XA20 Maintenance Controller for the flight asked regarding the status of the aircraft as it was still OTS (Out of Service) and was unaware of a flight on it. After looking into the status and verifying tail number I ACARS'd the aircraft at XA22 stating to not depart without being in MRF status; however wheels up was at XA22. At XA24 an MRF came through from Maintenance on my airworthiness management board. Aircraft completed the functional check and landed without incident. CA called me after the flight to discuss the airworthiness issue and I explained MRF/OTS/IS as well as the FOM location for his part of airworthiness management.Main causes were a Captain who was unaware of the airworthiness management process for IFCs as well as a lack of communication between Dispatch/CA on verifying airworthiness prior to departure. Providing a similar OTS message through ACARS that revenue/repo flights do for the flight. Further training on MRF status for IFCs for pilots as the CA specifically stated that he was not trained in regards to this. Potentially a system within the ACARS client for Dispatch to be aware of maintenance airworthiness issues after block out.




Synopsis: Dispatcher reported that Maintenance Operations authorized a non check Captain to do a dual engine change In flight Functional Check; who was unsure of requirements for this type of flight.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: F11.TRACON, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B MCO
ATC / advisory: TRACON F11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; 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 New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Our flight was filed as follows: MCOY1 ORL DCT CRG J53 DUNKN J53 GRADY J53 IRQ SPA J85 HVQ...   Our PDC showed a change to the departure as follows: MCOY1 SAV TRANSITION as filed. This transition does not connect to the filed route. After verifying the box with the filed route; we proceeded to taxi for takeoff.After getting airborne; ATC told us to fly direct to GUANO. When we told him that that fix was not in our flight plan; he had us intercept the 355 degree radial inbound to ORL. We proceeded to do this (backed up with raw data).  This is when we discovered that we never had the MCOY1 SAV transition in the box. The controller agreed with us; that the departure was incorrect in that his information showed ORL as the starting point and ending point for the departure.  We told the controller that we would inform our company of this error in the transition. He mentioned that he would do the same. The departure transition does not connect with the filed route. This should have been corrected on the ground at the gate.


Second narrative: Standardize the PDC so they are ALL the same; especially related to a change in clearance. I expected a change in our flight plan to be dashed and at the top of the PDC.


Synopsis: A321 flight crew reported a track deviation resulted when they incorrectly programmed the FMS after receiving a confusing PDC.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Upon arrival at the pickup point the Captain asked if I was 'ok to fly?' His concern was that I was soft spoken the day before. I advised him that I was fit to fly and ready to complete my duties to the highest standards. The Captain then stated; 'I am not going to fly with you past ZZZ.' We proceeded to the airport and went on with our preflight duties. I was then asked why the pairing still showed me on the remainder of the trip? I was given no opportunity to answer. The Captain left the flight deck. I was contacted by the duty Chief Pilot and questioned about my fitness for duty. I stated that I was fit to fly. I also stated that the Captain did not want to fly with me past ZZZ. I advised that I would re-evaluate my fitness in ZZZ. Upon arrival in ZZZ checked my schedule and noted that I was placed on a return flight to ZZZ1. Of concern is that I was fit to fly yet the NS for flight states that I was sick. I was not sick for the flight. I was shut down from communicating with the Captain when he stated; 'I am already showing symptoms and popping Zicams.' When I tried to explain to him that I was NOT the cause for whatever was ailing him; he stated that I was being argumentative. We agreed to 'stick to the script' and complete the flight to ZZZ. The flight itself was challenging; because of weather; but still unremarkable. I was the pilot flying.Many assumptions were made about medical and fitness to fly issues. When an attempt was made to address concerns; the dialog became a monologue without the benefit of bringing in other pertinent data. I have been flying for over thirty years; almost twenty with this company in various roles. I have never experienced such a breakdown in communications.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported that he was removed from a trip because the Captain falsely reported him as unfit for flight due to illness.