elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201709
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Large Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Denver 9 Controller had two aircraft (Aircraft X and Aircraft Y) on converging courses at the same altitude (FL370). If the D side from ZMP sector 42 wouldn't have the called Denver 9 Controller to turn Aircraft X 20 left; separation would have been lost less than 5 miles inside of our airspace. Both aircraft were less than 2 minutes from the boundary when we initiated the call to ZDV. With the 20 degree left turn; the aircraft passed approximately 6 mile from each other at the same altitude and within 5 miles inside our boundary! Unbelievable!




Synopsis: ZMP ARTCC Controller reported the adjacent center sector handed off two aircraft to them on converging headings at the same altitude.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: 9I0.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Airspace: Class E ZAU
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I wish to point out an extremely dangerous situation that has developed at 9I0 (Havana; IL) during military UAV operations. Twice this year we (9I0) hosted a military UAV operation. All is OK except for the NOTAM that goes out to the aviation public. Following are the NOTAMs available on DUATS for the operation :9I0 HAVANA RGNL !IKK 09/058 9I0 RWY WORK IN PROGRESS UNMANNED ACFT OPERATIONS SEE ZAU 09/056 !IKK 09/057 9I0 AIRSPACE SEE ZAU 09/056 UNMANNED ACFT. Pilots are taught to access DUATS for official information and data critical to flight. The above looks benign enough except that one has no idea what 'ZAU 09/056' is! If you do a search on DUATS it says 'Unknown.' So what does this mean; can I fly there or not? Looks OK just need to be a little more alert. I called FSS and got the following from the Briefer: 'You need to access the Chicago Airspace NOTAM's on the FAA web site.' OK. What does that say? It says: ZAU CHICAGO (ARTCC);IL. !IKK 09/056 ZAU AIRSPACE UNMANNED ACFT 3 NMR 9I0 3500/BLW. Briefer says; 'Looks advisory to me.' The military erects two barrier fences to 'capture' the UAVs; if necessary; on the 2;500 FT grass strip during the entire operation. The runway is definitely UNUSABLE. I have two issues with the above. One; all the information should be in DUATS. That is the hallmark of DUATS. Two; the runway and indeed the airspace was unusable to the aviation public. Why is this not emphatically conveyed in the NOTAM? As a footnote I wish to point out that the local airport users and the military have worked together to provide a valuable activity for our national interests. The operation is very valuable; and was a success. I think the fact that two of the local pilots took it upon themselves to call the surrounding small airports and advise them of the runway status has prevented any incidents.




Synopsis: Local pilot reports that 9I0 ocasionally hosts military UAV operations; but the NOTAMs that are issued are very obtuse and do not convey the fact that the airport is closed along with the airspace above.
Date: 201909
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DFW.Airport, TX
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While on standby; I was called with three others to help with pre-boarding a flight to ZZZ. The agent informed us at the gate that they were holding the flight for incoming crew. We went ahead and boarded and shortly after the agent stated they were boarding anyway. After boarding was complete; the gent came on and said we were going on the trip since the other crew was not there and that crew scheduling would call. I updated my flight and looked at crew portal where I saw that I had been placed on a trip to ZZZ1 that was supposed to leave a bit later. The door was shut and taxiout started. I started the safety video and my phone rang from crew scheduling. I answered the call; thinking that I needed to; since there was confusion about the working crew and the ZZZ trip listed. Crew scheduling told me to go directly to the gate for the ZZZ trip and I informed them our pre-board had been told by the agent we were going. They told me they had no idea that we were taking the ZZZ1 trip. After hanging up; the video was still playing for safety and I knew that I probably should not have answered the phone.I know not to answer my phone on board the aircraft.




Synopsis: Flight attendant reported answering a phone call from crew scheduling during taxi; resulting in a policy violation.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: RJAA.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower RJAA
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: NRT has a taxi page 20-9C-1. This diagram is so cluttered it is rendered unusable for flight deck use. It is even unusable if you are sitting still on the ground or in preflight. It is too complicated; small; and should be removed. If the info needs to be published it should be in a format that a flight crew can use at night while taxiing.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain describes the RJAA/NRT commercial chart 20-9C-1 as being very complex and difficult to interpret.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ORD
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After arriving into the ORD Terminal area; [we were] given vectors to a visual approach 10C. The flight was granted clearance to the visual approach and started to track the glideslope and localizer inbound for the approach. Prior to landing configuration change; the aircraft experienced a wake turbulence event. The aircraft rolled immediately 20 degrees to the left then approximately 45 degrees to the right. The event last 3-5 seconds. At this point the aircraft was at an approximate altitude of 3500 feet. The CA; who was also the PM; called for the aircraft and started an immediate climb to 4;000 feet and told ATC that [we were] executing a missed approach due to wake turbulence/unstable approach. After the aircraft was in a stable operating condition; the CA relinquished control of the aircraft to the FO to conduct the approach. The crew landed the plane safely on runway 9L. The flight completed without further incident.Aircraft landing prior to [us] generated wake turbulence. Due to the light winds the turbulent air was not broken up. If landing behind a larger aircraft and its wake; try to remain above the path of the aircraft if possible. Also; if there is a larger aircraft landing in front of a smaller one; ATC should give the wake turbulence advisory.

Callback: Reporter repeated his concern about not being advised by ATC of a possible wake turbulence encounter.



Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported executing a go-around after experiencing a wake turbulence encounter on approach into ORD.
Date: 201602
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Q400
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On my walk around I thought I saw ice on the leading edge of the wings. I asked the station person for a tactile inspection and she had no idea what that meant. When we did get a tactile; the person doing it came back and said the airplane had no ice on it. I did not believe him and asked my FO to look and see what he thought. He said there was ice. I then asked the ramp person who told us there was no ice to get the ladder and I wanted a good look for myself. There was ice on the leading edges. I showed the ramp person the ice and tried to explain this could be and an 'airplane killer'. He did not apologize or seem to care. When we deiced; the deicer said 'sorry it took so long; but you had a lot of rime on there'. We departed after deicing without incident.Out station personnel untrained and unfamiliar with procedures.




Synopsis: Q400 Captain reported ramp personnel seemed to be untrained in company procedures; specifically tactile inspection for airframe ice.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LEX.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dawn
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZME
ATC / advisory: Center ZME
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
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 Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Enroute to LEX during the cruise phase of flight. ATC issued us direct UNCKL; direct the airport; we entered it into the FMS as UNCLE. The confusion; and why we didn't catch it sooner was that UNCLE happened to be right along the route. Approximately three controllers later ATC asked us to verify we were direct UNCKL. We inquired and realized we had the wrong fix in the FMS; we changed to direct UNCKL; direct the airport and there were no issues.




Synopsis: A flight crew flew to an incorrect fix after they were cleared to UNCKL. They mistakenly typed in UNCLE and the error was not detected until about three controllers later. They inquired of ATC about the correct fix and then proceeded to UNCKL.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Lancair Legacy
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Day before incident plane was on jacks and I performed emergency gear extension. Gear switch was left in gear up position. All checklists were followed prior to takeoff. Checklist did not include inspection of gear switch. On takeoff approximately at 50 knots indicated air speed; air/ [ground] switch closed gear circuit resulting in gear retracting before flying airspeed achieved. To correct situation 1. 'Check gear position' added to checklist. 2. Airspeed switch be calibrated to activate 10 knots above rotation speed.




Synopsis: A Lancair pilot performed an emergency gear extension with the aircraft on jacks but failed to put the gear handle down; so on the next takeoff the gear retracted at too a low an airspeed as the ground/air switch closed.
Date: 201202
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Dash 8-100
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Gear Extend/Retract Mechanism
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; General Evacuated; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were on the visual approach my First Officer (pilot flying) called for gear down. I selected the gear to the down position but we did not get three green. What we got was green on the left main and nose gears; red on the right main and a yellow on the gear handle. We did a go around; contacted Maintenance and Operations. I called the Flight Attendant to ask if the gear looked normal. She said it looked OK. We did a low pass by the Tower and they said the gear appeared to be down. We then conducted the emergency gear extension. It did not produce the intended result so we declared an emergency and asked for fire trucks. We briefed the Flight Attendant and told her to move all the passengers to the rear of the plane. I informed her that we would brace for landing. During the whole situation I made multiple announcements keeping the passengers aware of our situation. When we had all the checklists complete; and the cabin ready; we made the approach for landing. With the flaps set at 35; I touched down as slow as possible holding the right main off as long as I could. The gear held! I came to a stop on the runway and shut down so I could get out and pin the gear. The right main could not be pinned without maintenance action. Maintenance suggested we start # 2 to keep 'gear down hydraulic pressure' in the system. We called for a bus to take the passengers to the terminal and off loaded the people a few at a time so the weight would not change all at once. When the mechanic got there he got the pin in with the tap of a hammer. We were on the runway for over an hour. With the gear now pinned; we taxied to the gate without further incident.




Synopsis: Upon receipt of a right main gear unsafe light when they extended the landing gear the flight crew of a DHC-8 declared an emergency; unsuccessfully performed the emergency gear extension checklist; prepared the cabin for an emergency evacuation and ultimately landed safely with the right main still indicating unsafe. Gear pins were inserted by Maintenance and the passengers were deplaned and bussed to the terminal.
Date: 201601
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: A I am sending this report because IT issues related to [the iPad] have been causing distractions (if not a 'threat') both on the ground and in flight over the last 24 hours.  Yesterday [the iPad] went into a 'Configuring' mode while in flight which made the application unusable (continuing spinning circle for the duration of the flight).  Re-powering the iPad was no help.  Once on the ground I called the iPad Support Desk and was told system -wide issues related to the iPad were amounting to a 'complete disaster'.  This morning; just prior to pushback; [the iPad] suddenly initiated an update on its own. I received a message when the update initiated stating that [the iPad] was about to begin an update; and asking if I wanted to 'continue' or 'cancel' I selected 'cancel' due to the timing; but this appeared to only cause the download and update to PAUSE; not cancel--rendering the app unusable.  I then allowed [the iPad] to update itself; but when that was finally done it needed to download 116 updates.  At the rate they were downloading it appeared that the entire process was going to be fairly lengthy.  Again; this is not the type of distraction we need right before pushback when there is plenty of other stuff going on in the cockpit.  I would like to at least have a modicum of control in deciding WHEN [the iPad] initiates a lengthy update of itself.




Synopsis: A B737 Captain reported technical problems with his ipad.
Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While turning into Gate X during daytime OPS at ZZZ; 3-4 tugs crossed directly in front of the aircraft forcing me (Captain) to quickly bring the 767 to a stop to avoid a potential collision.  After blocking in; I talked to maintenance and found out the problem. ZZZ OPS is short of people to marshal the aircraft in.  No wing walkers are present.  Maintenance marshalled us into parking.  Tug drivers are used to Wing Walkers and without the presence of them are driving in front of aircraft pulling into the gates.  Maintenance said this is not an uncommon problem. This is caused because of a need to change of habit pattern due to lack of Wing Walkers. Captain suggest ZZZ tug drivers; etc. Need to immediately be informed that Wing Walkers may not be present when aircraft are pulling into the gate.  This lack of Wing Walkers (due to a shortage of people) has taken away a primary cue that tug/ramp personnel had used previously.  Tell tug drivers to look for a marshaller with their wands raised and/or the aircraft turning into the gate.  What happened today was not good.




Synopsis: B-767-300 Captain reported a critical ground conflict during gate taxi in with ground vehicle traffic.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Approach Coupler
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The crew built bugged and briefed for the visual approach backed up by the ILS. The weather was VFR. It was also briefed to expect ATC to possible keep the flight above the glideslope (GS) intercept at the FAF. We were vectored and told to expect the ILS for runway XY. We were then given a vector and told to maintain 2500 ft MSL until passing [the FAF] and cleared for the visual approach. We turned to intercept the Localizer and descended to 2500 ft. The MCP was Alt hold and the GS only was armed.I as PNF did not catch the approach was selected after altitude capture at 2500 ft and prior to [the FAF]. The autopilot captured the glide slope and began descending on the glide slope to cross [the FAF] as published at 2500 ft MSL. This caused the aircraft to descend below our clearance altitude of 2500 ft at [the FAF]. As soon as the aircraft began descending the auto pilot was disconnected and the crew manually pitched up to regain the assigned altitude. We descended to about 2300 ft before the altitude began to be regained. Prior to reaching 2500 ft the aircraft passed [the FAF]. The crew then flew a visual approach which was stabilized and within parameters of the AOM (Aircraft Operating Manual) prior to 1000 ft. The crew completed the approach and landing uneventfully.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that after the autopilot captured the glideslope; it descended below the assigned altitude.