elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201307
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 1
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Citationjet (C525/C526) - CJ I / II / III / IV
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CYYZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We were cleared for the ILS Runway 05 at CYYZ. We broke out just inside the outer marker and had the approach lights and runway in sight. There was rain over the north half of Runway 05 extending to the west. As we got over the approach lights and I began to reduce power to slow and begin the transition; we hit heavy rain and our forward visibility was greatly reduced. We were able to land but the rain intensified to where we could not see out the forward windows. We struggled to find the runway exit (H3) and were able to exit; but then continued slightly right onto an access road. We soon realized our mistake; notified ATC and were cleared for a 180 degree turn and hold short of Runway 05. Just as I was turning back onto the taxiway; I noticed what appeared to be a light that had the glass top knocked off. I was not sure if this was done by us or not; but we mentioned this to Toronto ATC and they sent a CFR truck out to check. We never heard of the findings of their investigation whether it was us or not. We thought it was possibly done by us as we had our flaps in the 'ground' position as we taxied off. We checked out our aircraft thoroughly once we cleared customs. I gave my name and phone number to CFR and secured the a/c for the evening. The next morning we inspected the aircraft again more thoroughly and again found no evidence of any impact with a light.




Synopsis: CE525 Captain reports landing in a rain storm reducing forward visibility to near zero. Once off the runway on the desired taxiway an inadvertent turn onto a service road is made; requiring 180 turn back to the taxiway. No damage to the aircraft is reported.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: At the Captain's request I initiated a three way phone patch with Maintenance Control. My initial radio contact with the flight was very weak but readable so I completed the patch with Maintenance. After Maintenance Control came on line; however; the whole patch failed. I contacted the flight again with the same very weak but readable radio contact; brought Maintenance Control on the line but then couldn't re-raise the flight. The Captain then contacted me via our commercial radio link system and that connection was loud and clear. I requested that they make the patch to Maintenance Control as my phone system appeared not to be working well. They completed the initial patch successfully. However; when Engine Maintenance Control said the flight needed more input from Airframe Maintenance Control and tried to transfer the patch; there was a long silence. I finally asked the Captain if he was still there and he was. However Maintenance Control appeared to have dropped off the patch.At this point the Captain decided he would continue to destination and the patch was terminated. Airframe Maintenance Control then advised he could hear me and the flight on the line but could not join in. While this was all going on I had to ask two other Dispatchers to assist me with my workload. The airport weather forecast had changed to require an alternate so that flights en route had to be advised and I had to add an alternate to flights not yet departed.

Callback: Although the reporter provided no more 'incident specific' information she did expand on the generic problems associated with their new communications system; advising that similar breakdowns in 'conference' calling are regular occurrences and that pilot's frequently lose patience with the system and elect to 'go it alone' rather than face the continued distractions and interruptions that fail to resolve themselves. Dispatchers find themselves frequently having to multi-task and cover for one another in terms of completing 'routine' tasks while one or another is involved trying to communicate with a flight in need of assistance.



Synopsis: An air carrier Dispatcher was unable to establish a flight crew/Dispatch/Maintenance Control communication link request from a domestic flight. Ultimately; the Captain gave up the attempt due to the distraction being more of a problem than was the reason for which the patch was requested.
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUO.Airport, AL
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF AUO
Second aircraft: PC-12
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: My student and I were conducting a Part 91 instrument training flight under visual flight rules in the vicinity of the Auburn University Regional Airport (AUO) in Auburn; Alabama. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed during the flight and we were making normal position reports on the airport's CTAF. We were conducting a practice ILS runway 36 approach as our last approach during the flight; followed by a full stop landing. While we were on a three mile final; a Pilatus PC-12 made a left downwind radio call for runway 36 and I told the pilot I had him in sight. I do not recall the exact words he replied with; but he said something similar to 'Are y'all still on final? We can't extend much for you'. We commented that we were on a three mile final. When we reached a two mile final; I noticed the Pilatus already on a short left base directly abeam us. We continued the approach; and he called his turn to final when we were on approximately a one mile final. As we landed and continued on the runway without delay to A2 taxiway to exit the runway; I looked over my shoulder and noticed the Pilatus was past the threshold and touching down on the runway. We quickly turned left on A2 taxiway while he was quickly overtaking us at a high speed on the runway. The Pilatus quickly rolled past us as we cleared the runway; only missing us by approximately ten feet. I asked his for his tail number and he responded by saying 'Get over it'. He did not make another radio call while at Auburn to avoid identifying himself. Approximately ten minutes later; he took off runway 36 and made a low gear-up pass down the runway; making a very early turn out and departed Auburn.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a near collision as he cleared the runway at AUO just as a PC-12 passed through the intersection on his landing roll.
Date: 201512
Aircraft: No Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: After watching a video of a 'hover board' catching fire; I have become extremely concerned that our Company policy regarding carrying such devices in the cabin will lead to a disastrous event! I am told that our current Company policy is to consider them like cell phones. However; an electric wheel chair has the battery disconnected and put in our cargo bays. Over the last month; I have seen several of these 'hover boards' onboard. They are generally stored in the overhead compartments. My suggestion is that our Company change its policy so that these devices may only be carried in the cabin if the battery is disconnected. The rationale is simple. A reason for the fires is the motor overheats and catches fire. Once on fire; the batteries catch on fire and thermal discharge creating an extremely hot and out of control fire; one that I question could be extinguished before it would cause serious damage to the aircraft; and cause serious injury to passengers. Being stored in the overhead; near critical equipment (oxygen); gives me great concern after seeing videos of what happens to these devices. They are not like cell phones. Cell phones do not have motors that could get turned on or activated causing an overheat situation. These devices are no different than carrying powered chairs or wheel chairs. Here is a possible scenario. Passengers store 'hover boards' in overhead. Either due to the arranging or re-arranging of luggage and such in the overhead; the 'hover board' gets turned on; or perhaps the owner fails to turn it off. While in the overhead; one of the drive motors becomes engaged or activated. Whether because the motor remains on and engaged in a confined; unventilated space for an extended period of time; or because it is trying to turn jammed wheels; an overheat situation is likely. If that overheat leads to a fire; the fire could be fed by surrounding combustibles. If the fire gets to the batteries; a thermal runaway and intense fire occurs; lighting the entire overhead on fire. The intense heat could reach our oxygen system and results in an uncontrollable cabin fire. A complete aircraft loss and loss of life is highly possible! Currently; Pilots and Flight Attendants are virtually unaware and unprepared for such an event. My concern is that our current policy is not consistent with our high safety standard and concern. I propose; as a minimum; 'hover boards' not be allowed on the aircraft unless the battery is disconnected prior to boarding.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant expressed concern that current procedures related to hover boards may not be sufficient to prevent a serious in-flight fire.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MDW.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C MDW
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: 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: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on the RNAV GPS Z 22L approach into Midway; after breaking out of the overcast; and with the runway in sight; was given a low altitude alert by ATC; checked altitude and saw we were at the MDA; continued and landed safely.




Synopsis: CE-560XLS FO reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to MDW.
Date: 201301
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZZ
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: 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
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Ten minutes after passing TOPPS; flying direct to OYSTR in level flight; FL390; M.80; clear of clouds; encountered wake turbulence. Preceding A330 was 10 miles ahead; slightly left of our track proceeding to STEAM; FL390. Wind was approximately 65 knots; left quartering tailwind. Incurred approximately 2-3 seconds of light turbulence then aircraft started rolling hard left. Just prior to receiving 'BANK ANGLE; BANK ANGLE' alert; disconnected autopilot and manually rolled back wings level. Aircraft bank exceeded 45 degrees but unsure of actual bank angle. (No horizon reference available). No loss of altitude and no damage to aircraft. No injuries to crew or passengers. No further encounters.


Second narrative: [Narrative 2 contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: B757 flight crew reported wake vortex encounter from a preceding A330 at FL390 that resulted in a 45 degree roll to the left.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; General Maintenance Action; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Departing VMC all checks were normal; but climbing through 25;000 feet the pressure flow light illuminated. The Captain stated the cabin was at 8;000 feet and climbing 1;000 FPM and directed me to initiate an emergency descent to 10;000 feet. The Captain declared an emergency with ATC and coordinated a vector to return to the departure airport. The Captain read the QRH procedure and we accomplished the procedure. We were able to prevent the cabin altitude from climbing to 10;000 feet and the oxygen masks did not automatically deploy. The Captain informed the flight attendants what was happening; gave them their TEST briefing; and informed the passengers we were returning.  We landed overweight with a normal touchdown.  After landing; we coordinated with Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighters; ATC; Operations; and Ramp Tower to return to a Gate.  The brake temps remained within normal range.  After arrival; we debriefed with Maintenance. The Captain filled out the Maintenance Log for the pressurization problem and overweight landing; and then coordinated with Dispatch and crew tracking.


Second narrative: [This report contains no additional information.]


Synopsis: At FL250 and climbing; a MD-83 pressure flow light illuminated with the cabin climbing 1;000 FPM at 8;000 feet; so an emergency was declared; a descent started; and the QRH completed followed by an uneventful landing at the departure airport.
Date: 202107
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 30
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-32 Cherokee Six/Lance/Saratoga/6X
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Glider
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Near mid-air collision at the approach end ZZZ. It was almost a perfect storm that could have put us in a nearly unavoidable accident had the timing been a few seconds different. I was number one on final (RNAV Approach; VFR conditions; approximately 1/4 mile from threshold; visual landing) ahead of Aircraft Y on a survey mission landing for gas. The other aircraft was a Airtractor crop duster operating from a semi-trailer full of chemicals parked on the ramp. The pilot reported that his radio was marginal; but they had no replacement. His ground crew reported that he was using a hand-held radio. He made no calls before getting to the runway; and may not have even had the radio on until taking the runway. He certainly wasn't listening to it. He says he made a call taking the runway; but the FBO said it was more like a call after he was on the runway and rolling; and I didn't hear it or recognize it as there were also two aircraft operating same runway alignment; same frequency. I believe he took off from the midfield intersection just short of the midpoint of the 6307 ft. runway opposite direction to the one with two aircraft on final who had been making multiple position reports on CTAF. Winds were being called as calm until I was on three-mile final when they went to about 9 kts. crosswind. He obviously didn't visually clear the final approach course as he took the runway because I had all lights on (three strobes and three landing/taxi lights) and would have been quite visible had he looked.He was likely concentrating on centerline (tailwheel aircraft with a crosswind); and I was concentrating on the aim point on short final (end of the runway) so I could turn off at midfield with Aircraft Y behind me. When I was about ¼ mile on final; he came into my field of view just above the pavement less than 1000 ft. from the end of the runway. I went around and broke right; but he didn't deviate before he passed out of my view under my wing as I banked away. We passed abeam one another just south of the approach end of Runway XX. I doubt he saw me before I was wing-up passing him on his left.




Synopsis: PA-32 Pilot reported an NMAC on short final with a crop duster departing opposite direction.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [Don't know] if weather west of ZAU was necessitating odd routes or dispatchers are unfamiliar with optimal routes out of DTW with the DTW Metroplex implementation. Aircraft X departed DTW for ZZZ. The aircraft had filed the RNAV departure procedure that departs into ZID and replaces the departure route over RID (BARRI; BARRT; I looked at the previous route; that's what he had.) Aircraft X then filed over VHP and points west to ZZZ. The LOA between ZAU and ZOB requires DTW departures to be on the SNDRS SID; and that ZOB leave them on the filed route; ZAU has control for turns. ZOB cleared Aircraft X direct VHP; which avoided ZID and brought Aircraft X perilously close to FWA and the arrival stream into DTW (via the HANBL STAR); which is exactly what we're [trying to] avoid by having ZOB leave aircraft on the SID. Also; this aircraft climbed exceptionally poorly. That's another serious of reports. ZOB [should have] left the aircraft on the route; at least into ZID. ZAU has control for turns on SNDRS SID departures; there's no mention of aircraft ZOB shortcuts. ZOB should be discouraged from these reckless shortcuts when they (should) have an idea ZAU has worked to prevent them.




Synopsis: Chicago Center Controller reported a route change due to Detroit Metroplex; that had an aircraft's route too close to FWA and the arrival stream into DTW.