elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: AUS.Airport, TX
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Flight plan: IFR
ATC / advisory: Tower AUS
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Supervisor / CIC
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was CIC in the Tower.  Ground Control has training in progress.  Ground Control Trainer instructs the Developmental to allow pushes or instruct aircraft to hold push in an ATC non-movement/non-visibility area.  Additionally the LOA specifically calls the airline ramp a non-movement.  How can we instruct aircraft they can push or not push and we can't even see the back ramp?!  It's blocked by the terminal!  It's absolutely ridiculous.  NO one is following that LOA.  I've filed multiple reports that the ramp is listed as a non-movement area on the AFD; the back ramp isn't listed as a non-visibility area on the AFD and yet there are signs above every gate to 'Call ground prior to push back.'  The Trainer knows exactly that the LOA says it's a non-movement area and disregards that to his trainee.   Management knows people are willfully ignoring this rule and not addressing it.  The Facility Management knows the LOA and refuses to speak with the airport to have the signs above the gates removed [reporting agency] knows of this issue because I've filed several reports on it. Either the LOA needs to be changed that we do provide positive control in which case we need a camera in the back ramp to see; or the airport needs to take down the signs over the gates; fix the AFD; and inform airlines and instruct our OJTI's not to control the ramp!  It's a liability to the controller and the FAA if an airplane hits something or someone because we approved their push.




Synopsis: AUS Tower CIC reports of an ongoing issue related to pilots calling for pushback clearance in a non-movement area.  Signs at each gate advise pilots to call ground prior to pushback.
Date: 201501
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Passenger
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: On the ride to the hotel a captain who had been riding in the back of the aircraft showed me a picture of our right wing during the approach. The picture of the wing showed ice building on top of the wing behind the heated leading edge. The picture seems to show a significant amount of ice.  I have never previously encountered this.Prior to entering the clouds we had already turned on the anti ice and had green wing and cowl indication.  The bleed air had already been transferred to the APU to maximize air available for the anti ice system.  The picture of the ice is of the right wing. The left wing ice detection light didn't shine on the wing; so I couldn't see any ice on my side. The First Officer was flying so not looking back at his wing much.  We picked up moderate mixed ice on the descent and we did report it to approach.  After I arrived at the hotel I contacted dispatch and maintenance control to report what I had learned. I wanted to make sure other pilots were warned if coming in and I also wanted to have the ac checked for proper operation of the anti ice system as I didn't think there should be roll back like that on a hot wing.    Suggestions:  Inquire with Bombardier to see if this was an expected situation.




Synopsis: A CRJ-200 Captain was advised by a passenger on his aircraft that significant ice had built up on his right wing.  He learned of this after the flight and wondered whether the manufacturer would consider this to be an expected situation.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: I90.TRACON, TX
Light: Night
Aircraft: MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was working all East side sectors combined and the IAH Finals. This was Mid-Shift operation. An air carrier was inbound to IAH from the northeast. I issued an approach clearance and a few minutes later the pilot reported a near miss with an unmanned aerial vehicle. The pilot reported a 3-5 ft tubular aircraft at 8;500 ft passed 'very close' to their aircraft. The pilot called in on the phone later to confirm details and said the UAV was large enough to have taken down their aircraft had they hit it. It was unlit and grey in color. All three people in the cockpit saw it. The co-pilot described it as looking like a fixed wing long aircraft. They continued with the approach and there were no subsequent sightings. I turned off all filtering on my scope and still could not see any returns in the area that could be identified. This occurred within the Class-B airspace.




Synopsis: I90 TRACON Controller reported on an air carrier Flight Crew report of a near miss with a UAV while on approach to IAH.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was training in the traffic pattern with my student ZZZ airport (non-towered). I was on final approach about to reach the runway and another small plane rolled onto the runway and took off without self-announcing. They proceeded to take off and we had to take evasive action (immediate climb and offset to the side of the runway) to avoid a collision. I believe the other pilot simply didn't look before he took the runway (they were in a high wing aircraft - Cessna?). I asked on the CTAF what their intentions were; they said that they were departing straight out and flying up the coast at 300 feet. I continued to fly the right traffic pattern to continue closed traffic at Runway XX. As I entered the downwind another aircraft was flying the opposite direction of the traffic and was flying directly at me. I made another evasive maneuver (Climbing left turn) away from the opposing traffic and continued to fly the pattern for Runway XX. The opposing plane did a 180 left turn and entered the downwind in the correct direction next. There was also another aircraft in the pattern with a similar tail number. I'm not sure how there was such chaos and total confusion in this traffic pattern; but it was like 'Coyboy rules' with some pilots made some almost catastrophic errors. I believe that there were six aircraft in the pattern at one moment. There were two aircraft taking off and two; who entered the pattern after there were already four planes in the pattern. There were too many planes in the pattern at one time. I believe that I (we) did nothing wrong. We followed the rules and were going with the flow of the traffic pattern and operating safely.




Synopsis: C172 instructor reported traffic congestion and incorrect traffic procedures at a non-towered field resulted in an NMAC.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization Control System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: As we were approaching [destination] on the arrival; we were instructed to vacate FL310 and descend to FL260. After I set 26;000 in the altitude selector and set VS for the descent; I noticed that on the EICAS the cabin altitude was displayed in amber and indicated 9200 feet. I brought the CA's attention to it and we double-checked the pressurization settings. Glancing back at the EICAS; the cabin altitude has risen to 9600 feet. We donned our Oxygen masks and [advised ATC]; stating we needed to descend to 10;000 immediately. Without clearance; but under Captain's authority; we executed a rapid descent to 10;000 feet; with an initial turn to the right (south). We were shortly given the clearance to 10;000 feet and cleared direct to the airport. Once we reached 10;000 feet; we stowed the speed brakes; slowed to 200 KIAS and put the landing gear back up. We then ran the QRH checklist for rapid cabin decompression and then an approach check. During the emergency descent; the indicated cabin pressure altitude got as high as 11;800. Not enough for the passenger masks to auto-deploy. Without the emergency descent; the cabin pressure altitude may have gotten much higher than we experienced. We landed under a 'priority' status with ATC; as the situation had been dealt with.An uncommon situation is probably the biggest threat that we face as pilots. Obviously; the decompression and the resultant need for a rapid descent put the aircraft in an undesired state. Even though we were caught off-guard by the situation; I believe this one to be as close to 'by-the-book' as an event can be. Our FA performed fantastically; and ATC was a great help in accommodating our needs as well.  I think this went as smoothly as it could. The constant need to include 'Rapid Descent' in our Memory Items for each training cycle certainly helps rote and muscle memory take over when we need it.




Synopsis: EMB-145 First Officer reported a loss of pressurization at FL310 resulting in a rapid descent down to 10;000 ft.
Date: 201401
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Aircraft: DC-10 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Air Data Computer
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While descending through 5;000 MSL in IMC; the autothrottles and autopilot disconnected and Level 2 alerts for SEL ELEV FEEL MAN and SEL FLAP LIM OVRD illuminated. The Captain's IAS indicated 204K; standby and First Officer's IAS indicated 224K. We declared an emergency; flew a slightly extended downwind to complete [the associated] QRH Checklist and flew the ILS 36R approach to an uneventful landing.A CADC 1 failure suspected.


Second narrative: [No additional information contained in Narrative].


Synopsis: An MD10 flight crew suffered the likely failure of the number one CADC. Performed associated checklists as landed uneventfully.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duke 60
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Upon reaching FL210; I noticed a hissing noise from the back of the cabin near the door. The cabin pressure was decreasing so I immediately initiated a descent and notified ATC. I was asked if I wanted to [request priority handling] and at that time; the cabin pressure was beginning to correct itself; so I said no. I just asked to continue the flight at 11;000 ft. to be safe just in case it happened again.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a pressurization problem and advised ATC.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground ORD
Aircraft component: Nose Gear
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: During taxi in at ORD; we were making a turn on taxiway Golf. Rain was light to moderate. Aircraft speed was less than five knots groundspeed. Tiller was turned to the left and the aircraft continued straight ahead. It felt like the nose wheel was skipping off the ground and was fully extended. Suspect was an aft CG. The aircraft almost did the same thing during subsequent turns. We reduced taxi speed even further. During the event the aircraft was stopped on the edge of the taxiway and did not strike any ground objects. We inspected the aircraft at the gate with maintenance tech and no damage was found or noted. The maintenance tech stated that the nose wheel strut was extended further than normal.Suspected Aft CG and aircraft loading combined with rain intensity.




Synopsis: During taxi after landing at ORD; a B737-800 nosewheel became light and began skipping on a wet surface with an apparent aft loaded aircraft.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were on the ENDEE 3 Arrival into Chicago holding at POOGY at 17;000 feet. Chicago Center cleared us direct to POOGY and to 'descend via the ENDEE 3 Arrival'. After this; they handed us off to Chicago Center. We checked-in at 17;000 feet on the ENDEE 3 Arrival. Prior to our first crossing fix of NANEE; ATC asked us what altitude we were at. I responded 17;000 feet.  We were immediately belittled and sharply reminded that we were cleared to descend via the ENDEE 3.  I responded that we would make our first crossing fix at NANEE at or below 15;000 feet.  ATC immediately turned us off the arrival and was short with us.  I asked if there was a problem with our altitude. His response was to ask if we knew what a 'descend via clearance meant?' I knew that we were in compliance with all ATC instructions; therefore I did not respond. I knew a response would escalate the situation as it was clear ATC was stressed; over-reactive and may have had us confused with another aircraft.ATC may need increased staffing to relieve overworked Controllers; particularly in a high weather situation.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reports holding at POOGY at 17;000 feet on the ENDEE3 arrival to MDW; then told to proceed direct to POOGY and descend via the ENDEE3. The next Controller chastises the crew for not descending via the ENDEE3 (still at 17;000 feet) but not required to descend until NANEE at or below 15;000 feet. The reporter is perplexed.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: MFE.Tower, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D MFE
ATC / advisory: Tower MFE
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Check Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During the descent to Mc Allen Airport (MFE) from 2 nm north of FATOR Initial Approach Fix Runway 14 level at 2;000 ft; [there was] a blue triangular drone flight above the aircraft 300 ft above the aircraft '2;300 ft MSL.' The crew reported the drone to Mc Allen Tower. VFR day; no deviation; no damage; continue a normal approach and landing without incident reported. I was in the jump seat performing a Line Check.Cause: Unauthorized used of drone on a critical phase of flight area.Suggestions: More advice to the people about the danger and the consequences [of] a drone flying near an airport. Warning signs of flying drones near airports.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported a UAV flew 300 feet above their aircraft as it was beginning an instrument approach in VFR conditions.
Date: 201502
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: D10.TRACON, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E D10
ATC / advisory: TRACON D10
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were down wind on the approach to 36L (JOVEM1) @11;000 FT.  We were given a clearance to descend; I selected open descent and reached for the speed brake handle.  I inadvertently moved the flap handle from 1 to 2 (we were at approx 210 kts).  I saw the red over speed zipper move down and realized my mistake.  As I was reselecting flap 1; a warning sounded briefly.  I informed the Captain of had occurred and he entered an over-speed write-up in the maintenance log.I thought it was near impossible to confuse these two levers; I was wrong.  Making positive confirmation of exactly which control you are about to manipulate prior to movement is paramount.




Synopsis: A321 First Officer grabs the Flaps 1 handle while meaning to reach for the speedbrake lever while descending through 11000 FT.  Aircraft momentarily overspeeds Flaps 1.  Captain enters a flap overspeed entry in logbook.
Date: 201808
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CAE.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna 400
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class C CAE
ATC / advisory: Ground CAE
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Confusion; Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This was a solo cross country flight and I exited off the active runway and requested to Tower I wanted to take off again. They sent me to Ground. I informed ground I wanted to take off again and they were working on my VFR flight plan and also gave me directions to get to Runway 11. I was told by Ground to 'go right' which I did. I was issued a prompt command from Ground to immediately stop - which I did. I then was told to turn around. Off to my left I saw what appeared to be a turnaround taxiway. I proceeded to go that way but inadvertently crossed a hold short line. I was told again to turn around by doing a 180 degree maneuver. I then proceeded with the 180 and followed Ground's instructions to taxi to the takeoff position for 11. All was uneventful from that point forward. I had studied the taxiways carefully before approaching the airport but the runway I landed on [I didn't] know until I got there and I think that being nervous contributed to not just asking for progressive taxi directions at a strange; new airport for me as a student pilot.




Synopsis: Cessna 400 student pilot reported a runway incursion.