elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Military Transport
Operator: Military
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Second aircraft: Eclipse 500
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; 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; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Manuals
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Training was in progress at Local 1. Aircraft X was given to us from the TRACON 1/2 mile behind Aircraft Y with an overtake. Aircraft X was tagged for the overhead Runway 34L; and Aircraft Y had been cleared to land Runway 34R. Given the wake turbulence separation of an F not being allowed to be passed by a D; this was not an appropriate landing sequence and there was little time to correct the situation. The Tower Controller advised Aircraft Y of the C130 traffic behind and to his left landing the parallel runway; and the pilot of Aircraft Y stated that he had the traffic in sight. Aircraft Y's next transmission was that he had responded to an RA; but was now clear. Aircraft X ended up passing Aircraft Y while conducting his overhead approach; and was 600 feet above Aircraft Y at the time of passing him.The NCT controller clearly wasn't thinking about wake turbulence separation for aircraft on approach landing runways separated by 700 feet. In this situation; an F cannot be passed by a D. Giving the tower 1/2 mile to respond to the situation is poor technique. All conflicts SHOULD be resolved before handing the aircraft over to tower; and they were not. Aircraft X should have been broken off approach or altitude restricted by the tower; but given that training was in progress; and the minimal time available to react because of NCT's sequence; it did not. Had there been better communication and coordination by the NCT controller; I think this situation could have been avoided. There was no reason to jam Aircraft X in so close directly behind Aircraft Y.




Synopsis: RNO Tower Controller reported receiving successive arrivals to parallel runways from NCT TRACON with less than required wake turbulence separation.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CRW.Airport, WV
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C CRW
ATC / advisory: Tower CRW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Approaching CRW from the northwest; we were cleared direct to the FAF for the ILS Runway 23; instructed to maintain 4;000 feet and expect a visual approach Runway 23. At this point; we were approximately 10 NM from the field; with the runway in sight.During the arrival briefing; we had discussed the terrain around the airport to be aware of; as well as the necessity to back up the approach with the ILS; as well as the PAPI visual indicators associated with the runway since it would be dusk by the time we were on the approach. About 3-5 miles from the marker; the controller asked us to 'keep it close in' to allow a military aircraft to follow us to the field. As I turned a right base (approximately 4 miles north of the field); I called for 'gear down; flaps 22' and was descending through approximately 2;800 feet with the runway and PAPI in sight. Just after the pilot monitoring selected the gear and flaps; we received a single 'terrain' aural warning; followed by 'landing gear'. I immediately began a climb; turned toward the field; and subsequently called for a go-around. The Tower instructed us to maintain 3;000 feet and to enter a right downwind. We then completed a normal approach to landing Runway 23 backed up by the ILS.Threats were mountainous terrain; dusk conditions; ATC requesting 'close in' approach. [Our] errors: Accepting a challenging approach clearance resulting in a Unwanted Aircraft State (UAS). UAS: Aircraft ended up in a position that triggered a terrain warning.Despite the fact we had discussed the threats associated with the arrival airport; I allowed myself to be rushed at the suggestion of ATC. In hindsight; we never should have accepted a short approach clearance at an unfamiliar airport in dusk conditions. I should have had the pilot monitoring request vectors behind the other traffic approaching the field; or even better; vectors to the instrument approach.




Synopsis: Air carrier regional jet Captain reported receiving a GPWS Terrain warning during a night visual approach to CRW.
Date: 201206
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch; Initial Climb
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Immediately after takeoff an EICAS message appeared: 'LG AIR/GND FAIL' and we were unable to move the landing gear [lever] to the up/retract position. We completed several checklists and returned for an uneventful--below max structural landing weight--landing at our departure airport. We taxied back to the gate; notified Maintenance and Operations and entered appropriate AML write ups.




Synopsis: An EMB-145 flight crew; unable to raise their landing gear following receipt of an air/ground switch failure warning; returned uneventfully to their departure airport for maintenance attention.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Passenger Misconduct
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Passenger in X3 came aboard with a restaurant mouth shield to use on flight without a mask. I stopped X3 at boarding door and advised he needed a mask to cover nose and mouth for flight. He advised he had been using this plastic mask; that only covered his mouth; for the last 3 months with no problem. Since I felt this would escalate; when he did not want to take mask I offered; I let him take his seat. [We requested a] customer service representative to plane whom I also showed the mask and he advised oh no way he should never [have been] boarded. Which I told him I agreed but that his gate agent is the one that let him down to board. Customer service representative  approached X3 who agreed to wear a proper mask for the flight. Gate Agent not following procedures that have been in place for quite some time. She should have never let him down without a proper mask leaving it to crew to take care of. Make sure Gate Agents are following policies and procedures.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a passenger came on board the aircraft with a non approved face mask. A proper face mask was provided to the passenger.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
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; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: At the gate in ZZZ; all checklist and briefings were done in compliance with SOP. The push back and taxi were normal. We completed all checklists and discussed the 3 detail items for takeoff (wind; weight and temperature). Initial takeoff acceleration seemed normal. About mid-way through something began to seem wrong. By the time we reached V1; we were significantly down the runway. Rotation and climb were normal and out of 10;000 ft. The takeoff data and closeout were checked again for mistakes and none found. [Several days later] I received a call from the FOQA gate keeper who informed me we only had 1;035 ft. left at rotation. He also mentioned that at rotation we had 17 knots of tail wind. This is not the wind we were given at initial takeoff. Apparently there was some report of 17 gusting to 20 tail winds that we and several other aircraft did not receive. [This] sudden gust of wind was never passed along. I have seen several incidents of airports using a runway with a tailwind. Several times I have had to decline because weight and winds did not allow us to go. ATC needs to be more attune to our limits with tailwind on takeoff and landing. Warning pilots of tailwinds needs to be stressed much more.




Synopsis: A321 Captain reported ATC failed to report current tailwind gust resulting in a prolonged use of the runway on takeoff.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Dispatcher
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: This was a wake turbulence encounter with an A380 Super Heavy. In cruise flight we asked for higher altitude (we were at FL360 and requested FL380). ATC had us remain at current altitude for crossing traffic; the A380. We were west bound and the Super was at FL370 northeast bound. We saw traffic pass and shortly after ATC issued us climb clearance to FL380. It was night; but with almost full moon; but still could not see any contrails. The FO and I discussed the issue of staying clear of the A380 wake prior to the climb and we thought we were clear of his flight path. As we passed FL362 we had 2 very severe bumps in rapid succession as we crossed his wake. The bumps were like breaking through a brick wall. There was no upset; no altitude change and the cabin crew reported no damage or injuries. We elected to continue the flight. ATC was interested in the situation as they are still collecting data on the A380 wake issues hence this report.I feel this event shows the A380 Super may need additional consideration in regards to separation and wake turbulence avoidance. We were lucky there were no injuries or aircraft damage. The wake encounter truly felt as if we hit something; it was sharp and hard and only lasted for a moment. ATC was notified right away of the incident and receiving controllers only gave us a copy reply. A few frequencies later; ATC started to ask a lot of questions of the event. Even though we were aware of the dangers of the A380 wake; and took precaution to avoid it; we still hit it. There needs to be more stringent separation standards in regard to the A380.


Second narrative: [An A319] crew advised me that they had a wake turbulence event over HLC VOR. An A380 was heading northeast at FL370. [The A319 crew] was at FL362 heading southeast. The crew reported no cabin issues; no loss of altitude; and no upset - just a crossing jolt.


Synopsis: A319 Captain and a Company Dispatcher reported the aircraft encountered wake turbulence at FL362 when they crossed the wake from an A380 at FL380. The Captain suggested more stringent separation standards relative to Super heavy A380 aircraft.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MKC.Tower, MO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MKC
ATC / advisory: Tower MKC
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Air Traffic Control; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Aircraft X was inbound from the southeast and tracking direct to the airport. Aircraft X checked on with Tower on a Visual Approach southeast of the downtown buildings and twin antennas. I cleared Aircraft X to land and asked the pilot if he intended to base north or south of the twin antennas. I didn't have any other traffic at the time so this served mostly to remind or alert the pilot about the antennas as he descended and flew towards them. The pilot first stated his intention to turn base south of the antennas. The Low Altitude Alert triggered and as the Approach Controller keyed up the shout line to notify me of the Low Altitude Alert the pilot of Aircraft X called up again and changed his plan to base north of the twin antennas. I observed Aircraft X out the windows and watched as he maintained safe spacing from the obstructions before turning Final.Stop bringing aircraft from the southeast direct to the airport and stop actively creating watch situations. The downtown buildings and twin antenna are significant obstructions and frequently interfere with pilots getting and keeping the airport in sight. A 7 to 10 mile straight in for aircraft arriving for the northeast prevents this.




Synopsis: MKC Tower Controller reported the Approach Controller advised them of a Low Altitude Alert for an aircraft on a Visual Approach.
Date: 201309
Location: SDF.Airport, KY
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground SDF
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: Taxiing to Runway 35R on Taxiway D; the ILS critical area painted markings on the taxiway are incorrect.  The markings on the ground are those of runway boundary/hold short not those for an ILS critical area. There are also wig-wag lights on and flashing at the ILS critical area and not at the actual runway boundary. These non-standard markings are very confusing. SDF needs to remove the wig-wag lights and paint the correct markings on the ground at the boundary of the ILS critical area.




Synopsis: B737 Captain believes that the ILS critical hold line on Taxiway D at D1 is painted incorrectly as a runway hold line at SDF.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: RYY.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 15
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 R Ovation
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E A80
ATC / advisory: Tower RYY
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was inbound to RYY and on vectors by Approach. I was initially instructed to descend to 4;000ft and intercept the localizer for Runway 27 at RYY. At 4;000; I was in and out of IMC and my next clearance was to descend to 3;000 ft. On the descent; the controller asked me to report the airport in sight. At approximately 4 miles from ALBRS; I reported the airport in sight and was told cleared for the visual approach Runway 27; radar services terminated and told to switch tower frequency. I switched tower and reported my position as 3 miles from ALBRS tracking the localizer inbound for full stop. Tower requested I report a 5 mile final and asked if I had a visual on the traffic on final. I responded looking. I did not see any traffic ahead of me. I checked airspeed and lowered the gear to reduce speed to intercept the glide path for the visual approach. At about that time; I received a traffic alert from my active traffic system 'less than 1 mile and same altitude.' My wife was in the copilot seat and pointed out the traffic. I saw what appeared to be a red and white Cessna 172 closing on about a 130 heading at my 1 o'clock high (approximately 100 ft above us). I initiated an evasive maneuver down and left and the aircraft passed above me. I reported to the tower that we passed in close proximity and asked if he had the aircraft on radar. He said he had him at 3000 ft. I am not sure they ever saw my aircraft. I was cleared to land and executed an uneventful landing. After I cleared the runway; the controller asked me what color the aircraft was. I told him it looked like a red and white Cessna.This event happened in a very short time span between the approach controller handing me off and the tower fully integrating me into the traffic pattern. When my wife and I fly together; we always brief the importance of looking for traffic especially in the terminal area. Fortunately; technology and her looking for the traffic averted a bad situation.




Synopsis: M20 pilot reported a NMAC with a C172 while on approach to RYY.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Shortly after assuming the Local 1 position I had a few departures with multiple arrivals to RWY 19R. ADW [Arrival Departure Window] was in effect and everything was going as usual when I initiated Aircraft X to line up and wait. I was waiting to shoot a gap between Aircraft Y who was in the ADW window and another aircraft who was approximately 5 miles out. Once the ADW window was clear I gave Aircraft X a takeoff clearance. Aircraft X began take off roll. As I normally do; I turned to look towards the approach end of 19R to ensure the aircraft wasn't going around. In my scan I spotted the aircraft passing the threshold and about to touch down. That is when I realized the size of the aircraft and noticed it was a B757. I immediately turned back towards the approach end of runway 25R to see what degree of commitment Aircraft X was in their departure roll. My initial reaction was to cancel their take off clearance but Aircraft X appeared to be at a high speed roll past taxiway A2. I assessed the situation and given the size of the aircraft; the outside air temperature and the speed Aircraft X was at; I felt that it was in the best interest of the operation to allow Aircraft X to rotate and continue. I watched to ensure that Aircraft Y successfully landed and that no other intervention had to take place. I personally think B757 should be taken out of the ADW order. However; given that it is currently a rule to ensure a B757 is wheels down before launching; I think briefing the rest of the facility or making this an unusual situations simulator would be great training. We don't often see a B757 using a [N-number] call sign. And for the few times that we do; we aren't necessarily applying ADW. I believe it is easy to have a biased expectation that a [N-number] is associated with a larger or smaller aircraft.




Synopsis: Las Vegas Tower Controller reported not applying Arrival Departure Window procedures correctly leading to a loss of separation.