elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I made my decision to land on Runway 20 based on the windsock; which was indicating that we would have a slight left quartering headwind. Upon landing; however; the wind shifted to a tailwind; and I was unable to sufficiently slow down before turning off the end of the runway. Due to the excess speed; the plane went about 5 feet in the grass and impacted a runway light. After impacting the light; the airplane's tires gained traction and turned back toward the taxiway. However; before the airplane could get back on the taxiway; the nose gear went into a small hole; causing the propeller to impact the pavement. A few contributing factors to this incident were 1) the variable gusting winds 2) the fact that I landed long and 3) the fact that I was flying the final approach at a slightly higher speed that normal to compensate for the gust factor. My decision to land on Runway 20 was based on the visual cue I had from the windsock. However; even though the wind was gusting variably; I should have based my runway selection on the ATIS [AWOS] instead of the windsock. I also should have initiated a go-around when it was evident that I was going to land long. In the future; I will base my runway selection decision off of the ATIS reporting system; especially if the wind is a severe crosswind. Additionally; I will use special caution and make sure to abort the landing if it appears that I will land past my intended touchdown zone; especially when carrying excess airspeed.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reports landing long with a tail wind and not being able to stop prior to the end of the runway. A runway light is struck and during the taxi back to the runway the nose gear goes into a hole; allowing the propeller to contact the ground.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Light: Night
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Other 105
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Skydiving
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZOB
ATC / advisory: TRACON D21
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working D-side at LFD.  OJT being conducted on R-side.  Holding 5 aircraft at MIZAR for DTW and more on the way.  Holding stack started at 120 and extended up to 170.  Parachute operations are common occurrence at Myers-Divers airport; which is about 12 NM north/northeast of MIZAR.  Procedure for para-jumps is spelled out in LOA.  I observed code XZXY; which is one of the predetermined para-jumper codes; climbing out of about 080 near Myers-Divers.  I assumed DTW would keep jumpers well north of MIZAR holding stack; this is also spelled out in LOA; that D21 ATCT will protect for holding pattern airspace while ZOB is holding at inbound fixes.  As I scan a few moments later I observe code XZXY climbing out of 115 very close to holding aircraft.  I called D21 (MIZAR position) and questioned whether para-jumpers were going up; he responded with something like; 'Yeah; looks like it.'  I asked who was working them and called D21 (departures position) and questioned him.  Controller responded in the affirmative.  I was shocked and began to issue traffic to DTW on at least four aircraft in holding pattern and the D21 controller said something to the effect of; 'Do you want to talk to the jumpers?'  I responded; 'No; I don't think they should be jumping right next to holding stack.'  D21: 'They're VFR; you don't have to worry about them anyways.'  I don't believe an official point out ever occurred and code XZXY was above 130 by the time I was communicating with DTW Departures. More conversation transpired; but DTW did not follow procedure and then for DTW to treat this event as no big deal was shocking; especially since about 18 months ago a airliner almost collided with jump plane in same vicinity. If underlying facility is planning on using adjacent airspace they need to provide more notice. They also need to be prepared for ATC to say 'Unable.'




Synopsis: ZOB Controller reports of an incident involving a skydiving aircraft that isn't pointed out to him and he has to find out what the aircraft is going to do.
Date: 201411
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Descending into ZZZ while on a vector to final ATC advised us of VFR traffic at our 12 o'clock position. We thought we could see the traffic just before it entered a cloud that we were about to fly over and had verified the traffic on TCAS. The aircraft was climbing; and when it was about 200' below us we received a CLIMBING TCAS RA. CA Smith who was flying at the time took evasive action in compliance with the TCAS RA. I notified ATC of the response action; and we returned to normal flight moments later.[This event was caused by] another pilot [who] chose to operate his/her aircraft in clouds without a clearance.Aircraft within close proximity to Class C airspace should be required to be in contact with a controller at all times.


Second narrative: Approach informed us that we could deviate as necessary to avoid traffic.


Synopsis: An arriving CRJ-700 flight crew experienced an NMAC with a VFR aircraft operating in IMC just outside their destination airport's Class C.
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BOI.Airport, ID
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C BOI
ATC / advisory: TRACON BOI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On descent; we asked for the Required Navigation Performance (RNP) approach 28R via EKEME transition. The controller stated 'standby'; and after a few moments stated 'cleared for the RNP Z 28R'. We repeated the clearance; and turned towards EKEME; set the correct altitude in the alerter and VNAV solution. As we approached EKEME; the controller asked if we were on the approach. We replied in the affirmative; adding that we were direct EKEME as cleared. The controller turned us onto a new vector and assigned a new altitude; stating he thought we were going to follow the north transition. There were no issues complying with the new clearance; and we landed safely following vectors to the Visual Approach.The source of the confusion is the approach plate - the RNP Z to 28R does not have any northern transitions - they are all south of the airport. The correct approach from the north is the RNP X to 28R - which has been NOTAM'd out of service for the last few months. Our request very clearly specified the RNP Z 28R approach via EKEME transition- which is the closest Initial Approach Fix (IAF) from our direction of flight. I don't know what approach plate the controller had; but ours clearly showed no northern transitions to the approach. Since our request included the EKEME transition; our expectation when we received the 'Cleared for approach' call was to go direct EKEME. Contributing to the situation is that the correct approach for the direction of flight inbound is the RNP X to 28R that has been NOTAM'd out of service for a very long time; thus requiring non-normal requests and operations. Additional issue - the original approach contained a northern transition - but the approach was later split into the RNP X northern approach - which has been NOTAM'd for some time. I don't know what version approach plate the controllers have.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported confusion with ATC in regard to the approach transition issued.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: TPA.Tower, FL
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B TPA
ATC / advisory: Tower TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Tampa Tower was broadcasting simultaneously over Tower; Ground; and Clearance Delivery frequencies. This was very distracting; especially while flying an ILS approach with challenging weather conditions. The transmissions were non-stop to include lengthy Clearance Delivery reads and read backs. This was a problem for several reasons. First; all the chatter was very distracting and only worsened as we were flying an ILS due to deteriorating weather conditions. Even in clear conditions; this would have been too much. Secondly; there was not any chance to squeeze in our own transmissions since they were talking non-stop. Lastly; the Controller was essentially maxed out. Sure; he was managing; but it was getting chaotic. After landing; we mentioned how this was a problem but got zero response back. This practice is unacceptable; in my opinion; especially given the volume of traffic and the weather conditions.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported TPA Tower Controller broadcasting on all frequencies caused a distraction to the flying pilot.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: Marginal
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Other Preflight loading
Aircraft component: Air Conditioning and Pressurization Pack
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Physiological - Other
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew; Person Passenger
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just prior to closing cabin door; Flight Attendant came up to say there was a musty smell mid cabin. He mentioned all flight attendants confirmed this and that some passengers queried about it. While discussing it; we then started to smell it up front. Passengers and crew were removed from aircraft. First Officer and I had throat irritation which went away in time after leaving aircraft. Packs need servicing.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported deplaning passengers and crew during preflight due to 'musty odor' throughout the aircraft. Odor was also reported by flight attendants and passengers. Captain reported experiencing temporary health issues.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
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: Autopilot
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: In cruise flight at FL380; .78 Mach; autopilot CMD B engaged; the jet suddenly began 'driving' or yawing to the right. I would describe the motion as more of a constant drive and definitely not a 'snap' movement. I immediately grasped the yoke and attempted to return the nose of the jet back to its original position. Concurrently; I scanned the instruments/lights for any signs of an engine rolling off or other indications pertaining to this unexpected movement (hydraulics; yaw damper; etc.). The CA (pilot not flying) felt the jet move and asked me what I was doing; my response was that I was not making any inputs to the jet to cause this drive/yaw and that my feet were flat on the deck when this motion ensued. As the drive deepened the jet started to roll to the right. I immediately clicked off the autopilot while simultaneously announcing my action. I manually flew the jet back into our original state (.78 at FL380). I believe we may have gained/lost +/- 60 feet but I don't recall how many degrees of heading changed; I'm also not certain how much we rolled but I'm guessing it was around 5 degrees when I reacted. After some discussion; the CA elected to engage autopilot CMD A. The flight proceeded normally with no further anomalies.It was night; no turbulence or chop; and no 'heavies' nearby that might have generated a wake turbulence event. The CA requested maintenance meet us at the jet for a debrief. After we debriefed the maintainer and after the passengers had deplaned; two of our flight attendants (the number 1 and one from the back) asked us 'what the heck happened back there.' They went on to describe their experience similar to the sensation of being on a boat. A yawing; mushy feeling of working through waves; etc. Both also declared being somewhat disoriented by the motion; perhaps due to inner ear fluid movement. After the flight attendants were debriefed by the CA and myself; we surrendered the jet to maintenance; deplaned and concluded our sequence.




Synopsis: B737-800 First Officer reported the aircraft yawed to the right at FL380 with Autopilot B engaged.  Substituting Autopilot A solved the problem.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: O61.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class G 061
ATC / advisory: CTAF O61
Second aircraft: Cessna Single Piston Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Aircraft; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: As I was approaching the traffic pattern area; an aircraft on Ground called taxiing to runway. We were airborne and made a call 5 miles out to enter downwind. Departing aircraft did not make additional radio calls. We scanned for traffic and did not see them depart. Approximately 2 miles from the airport departing traffic made a radio call over the lake at our same altitude. At the last second we made visual contact and entered a dive to avoid a collision. Estimated distance was at most 50 feet. We entered pattern and landed without incident. Departing traffic left the area.




Synopsis: A GA pilot entering the traffic pattern at a non towered airport reported a NMAC.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I called the center on the phone and got our clearance about 10 minutes before departure. 'As filed' is assigned but our filed clearance required us to take off from Runway 17. Due to winds we had decided to takeoff from opposite runway which is 35. I explained that to the person on the phone and said we will takeoff from Runway 35. He said 'Ok.' I assumed that he would coordinate the information I shared; with their operations center/radar operators. After departure center controller asked why we were heading north.The cause was not making sure the information passed to the right people. We realized the lack of coordination and continued as it is. Flight center should coordinate if clearance is discussed/requested amendment.




Synopsis: Light transport pilot reported ATC was confused as to their direction of flight after departure; due to a communication breakdown while picking up their IFR clearance via telephone.
Date: 202201
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B DCA
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Aircraft component: Radio Altimeter
Component problem: Failed; Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On departure out of DCA the RA flag flashed on the Captain's side for less than a second. It was approximately 8;000 ft. over RGIII intersection. No other abnormalities after that; until on approach into IAH on 26L. It happened 3 more times about a second each time at approximately 3;000 ft. and on the 3rd time; the AP disconnected. We notified ATC per the 5G Pilot Bulletin and hand flew the aircraft to a normal landing. After parking at the Gate; I submitted a maintenance write up and called the FODM and Dispatcher and submitted [a report].




Synopsis: B737 flight crew reported encountering possible 5G interference while departing DCA and again during descent into IAH.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Flight was from ZZZ to ZZZ1 a route that both pilots were very familiar with and regularly fly approximately once a month. Our filed route and our cleared route was 'ZZZ2 ZZZZZ.ZZZZZ1.ZZZZZ2.ZZZZZ3.ZZZZZ4.ZZZ3.'Cruising at FL300 ZZZ Center on [frequency] called: 'Aircraft X cleared direct ZZZZZ3' as PNF I looked down to select direct ZZZZZ3 in the FMS. I was surprised to see that neither ZZZZZ2 or ZZZZZ3 was in the flight plan entered in the FMS. I entered ZZZZZ3 and selected DIRECT. At this point we were approximately abeam ZZZZZ2 and paralleling our correct route but several NM to the east of it.I was certain that I had entered both ZZZZZ2 and ZZZZZ3 into the FMS prior to departure from ZZZ; but apparently; I then had inadvertently linked the end of the ZZZZZ SID which was ZZZZZ1; to the beginning of the ZZZZZ5 STAR which was ZZZZZ4; which effectively eliminated the two waypoints ZZZZZ2 and ZZZZZ3 which were in between the SID and the STAR.Our SOP is for both pilots to review the filed flight plan; the clearance and the FMS flight plan together before leaving the ramp. I was hurried that morning and made a mistake which was not discovered on the ground because we neglected to review the Flight Plan/Clearance/FMS per the SOPs. Our flying has been greatly reduced in the last 12 months and we seemed to be rushed to prepare for the flight despite showing 1 hour and 10 minutes prior to the scheduled departure. Strict adherence to the SOPs is planned for all future flights.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot reported a track heading deviation after misprogramming the FMS resulting in two fixes being dropped from the route. Pilot cited time pressure and lack of recent flying as contributing factors.