elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ANC.Airport, AK
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 50
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ANC
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Airspace Structure

Narrative: Anchorage Tower was acting as Tower for both Lake Hood (LHD; a gravel airstrip and seaplane base); and for Anchorage International Airport (ANC; a very busy international cargo airport). The two airspaces are adjacent; but clearly segregated. While I was awaiting takeoff clearance for ANC 25R; the controller was issuing instructions for aircraft at both airports; and appeared to be confusing aircraft from time to time; and missing calls from some aircraft.Pilots typically pay close attention to Tower to understand where traffic is; and I was unable to visualize the traffic and understand which calls were for aircraft at ANC; and which were for LHD. I feel that this is a dangerous situation that could be rectified by having separate controllers and frequencies for the two different airports.




Synopsis: Pilot reported of listening to one controller work two different airports. Pilot thought this was confusing and could not visualize the traffic. Reporter wanted two separate controllers to work the two different airspaces.
Date: 202112
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Parts / Stores Personnel
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Arrival MX dept
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: On Date I processed 2 separate Hazmat items going to ZZZ for stock replenishment. I had them to be picked up by [shipping company] the next morning and delivered over the next days. I signed into our Hazmat shipping procedure program and gathered all the materials required. The materials available to me for cushioning was corrugated paper in abundance. Procedural verbiage in one of these parts allows for 'any cushioning material' as per IATA standard and then lists examples: foam sheets; bubble  wrap. My understanding of these mentioned items was that they were examples; so I used what was readily available. The other part did not have any specific mention of packing materials and furthermore in the packing instructions; says 'bubble wrap or other cushioning material.'The discovery of 'improper cushioning material' was made aware to me by Name; Supervisor on Duty during a meeting he set up after our briefing on 2nd shift on Date 1; over a month after ZZZ had received my shipments. My understanding of 'any material' is not restrictive; I used what is available. The clerk in ZZZ did not know what the corrugated paper was.During this meeting; I requested of Supervisor on Duty to please email the procedures department to get clear instructions in their procedures if we are restricted to use only certain materials.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Maintenance Stock Clerk reported being notified of Hazmat packaging violation a week after violation occurred. Stock clerk requested more clear and concise packaging information.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: A90.TRACON, MA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E A90
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Climbing out on BLZZR4 departure out of BOS Runway 22R was given a climb from 5;000 feet to 6;000 feet. Shortly thereafter departure turned us off the SID to a heading of 190. While in the turn I noticed I was approximately 250-300 feet above the assigned altitude of 6;000 feet. Started to make an immediate correction but entered some wake turbulence of the preceding aircraft and our altitude got to approximately 6;450 feet and airspeed was 15 kts hot. We made an immediate correction back to 6;000 feet and corrected the airspeed deviation. No other excursions occurred. ATC never contacted us or mentioned anything.




Synopsis: B767 Captain reported that distraction resulted in an altitude and airspeed deviation.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Neither one of us had ever been into ZZZ. We both took the opportunity on the flight to review the company pages. Acknowledging that it is a special qualification airport and after review of company documents; we realized that controls needed to be transferred to the Captain due to my low time in the aircraft. Control of the aircraft was transferred at approximately 13;000 feet MSL. Traffic was landing XXL. We briefed and set up for the RNAV for XXL. Center handed us off to ZZZ Approach. We were asked to advise when the field was in sight. Conditions were VFR and remained so. We had the field and were cleared for the visual. We recognized immediately that we were high. We had a tailwind which made it exceptionally difficult to get configured. The Captain continued to descend and try to reduce speed. He called for gear; however; I was unable to extend the gear because we were not at the appropriate speed. We were switched to Tower. The Captain continued the descent all the while attempting to reduce speed. Best guess we were at approximately a 7 mile final. We received an EGPWS 'TERRAIN TERRAIN'. The Captain shallowed the descent. It was then followed by a 'TERRAIN TERRAIN PULL UP' and I called for the go-around. We followed the escape procedures; were vectored around the pattern; and landed without incident. Neither pilot had been into the airport. We had reviewed documents; however once cleared for the visual we did not comply with the prescribed speeds on the arrival. In retrospect; we should have continued on the RNAV arrival since we were unfamiliar with the airport. Additionally; better awareness of wind may have assisted in getting configured.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported aircraft generated CFIT Warning while on approach.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ramp ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Other / Unknown; Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We pushed off of Gate XY on Ramp Z with clearance. We called for taxi and were cleared to taxi on the right. After crossing the center roadway; another carrier that had pushed off the gate onto the left lane powered up and transitioned into the right lane right in front of us. To avoid contact; it required more than normal braking. I could see the F/O on the (other carrier) aircraft; so I assume he could have seen us if they had cleared their turn. I questioned the Ramp Controller but I think she was confused by similar call signs.  We were taxiing at a slow appropriate speed.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a critical ground conflict with another air carrier that cut in front of this Captain. Evasive braking was required. Similar call signs may have contributed.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; Marine layer to west; 6
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: RV-7
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I landed on Runway XXR; I exited the runway onto Alpha; cleaned up the plane and made a radio call. I had not heard any radio calls of aircraft landing on Runway XXL and with the time and marine layer to the west thought Runway XXL was closed. As I proceeded to taxi on Alpha to cross Runway XXL I looked left a second time to clear the runway so I could safely cross that's when I saw an aircraft that I had not seen the first time I looked. The aircraft was moving at high speed down the runway; I saw my best option to avoid any kind of accident was to stop immediately. I applied brakes which was apparently to abrupt because the plane started to nose over; I quickly let off the brakes; made sure the stick was full aft (which it was) and tried to pull the mixture to stop the engine. I was not fast enough to stop the engine but by letting off the brakes I was able to prevent a total nose over. The propeller struck the taxiway; the engine stopped and the tailwheel forcefully hit the ground.




Synopsis: Vans RV-7 Single Pilot reported a Critical Ground Conflict while attempting to cross runway with a NORDO landing aircraft.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: 3CK.Airport, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: CTAF 3CK
Second aircraft: UAV - Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Departing VFR from runway 26 at 3CK; I planned to do a left downwind exit from the traffic pattern and continue eastbound to my home airport. The weather was CAVU and hot and sunny; with a slightly gusty wind.Nearing the midfield point in the downwind at about 1000 ft AGL; I noticed what I first believed to be an opposite direction airplane heading toward me. A normal 30 degree bank was sufficient to maneuver to avoid it. Getting a little closer; I realized it was not a manned aircraft; but rather a tiny drone (and was therefore much closer to me than I initially thought). No abnormal maneuvering was needed to miss the drone; though I probably would have hit it; had I not seen it or taken action.No one else was in the pattern and the radio was quiet; but I nonetheless broadcasted a warning to others over CTAF. I estimate the drone was at 1000 ft AGL; about 1 mile north of 3CK. I never saw it turn or evade; so I presume its operator was unaware of the conflict... though he/she was probably unaware of a lot of things if he thinks operating at 1000 ft next to an airport is okay.




Synopsis: A pilot reported a near miss with a UAV at 1000 feet AGL while on downwind departing 3CK.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: BUR.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Night
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach; Descent
Airspace: Class C BUR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Manuals; Weather; Aircraft
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Our release for flight to BUR contained MEL 32-42-XX #4 Main Landing Gear Tachometer INOP. We were dispatched to land on BUR Runway 08; MLW (Maximum Landing Weight) 287.4; calm winds; dry; flaps 40 and included the MEL. Contacted dispatcher per directives and release note during BUR construction; and confirmed ILS Runway 08 would be available. About 1.5 hours into flight; ran our own landing performance data using current ATIS information and estimated landing weight of 275. The computations revealed that the only runway we could use to land was Runway 33. NOTAMS showed Runway 33 was scheduled to close 20-25 minutes prior to our arrival. Contacted dispatcher; and he coordinated with BUR operations to keep the runway open for our arrival. There were a lot of clouds in the area and we needed 5000/5 to fly RNAV Visual Runway 33 approach. Once in the destination environment we attempted the Visual approach; but it was obvious that we could not maintain VMC on the profile; so we terminated the approach and proceeded to SILEX to hold; hoping the weather would improve. Once established in holding we were informed that BUR Runway 33 was closed; so we proceeded to our filed alternate. The information on the release showed that we could use BUR Runway 08 at MLW of 287.4; including the MEL so we proceeded to BUR. Our landing performance data indicated Runway 08 was not valid. Some MEL's restrict landing at several short runway airports (BUR; SNA) and I think this one should be evaluated for that limitation. Ensure the release landing data is consistent with computation/software we use in the aircraft.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: A300 flight crew discovered enroute that the landing data provided by the Dispatcher prior to departure does not agree with the data produced by their iPad app. The only suitable BUR Runway was 33 which was accessed via an RNAV visual; but the weather did not allow. The crew diverted to their alternate airport.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: 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 ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Airspace Structure; Company Policy; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X came to me level at 35;000 feet. When Aircraft X entered my sector he said he needed to descend to a lower altitude right now; and it sounded as if something was wrong. In my experience this is normally a pressurization issue. I looked at the underlying sector's traffic and saw one aircraft and no other traffic. I decided to turn Aircraft X 15 degrees left to avoid that aircraft and gave him a descent to 24;000 feet. I yelled across to adjacent sectors and told them Aircraft X needed an immediate descent and to turn their aircraft to the left. That sector turned their aircraft 30 degrees left.During this entire time Aircraft X did not answer me and I believe he did not make the turn. But he did start descending. At this point I knew something was absolutely wrong because he was descending rapidly and he was not responding. Two minutes passed and I asked what the issue was and did not receive a response. I then asked if he wanted lower. He said yes; and I could hear he had his oxygen mask on. I gave Aircraft X a descent to 10;000 feet and he responded with the correct read back.Aircraft X then asked to divert. I gave the clearance and also asked for the nature of the emergency; people on board; and fuel remaining and did not receive a response. Aircraft X then asked to divert to a different airport at which point I gave him a clearance and a heading at his request. He then leveled at 10;000 feet and notified me his windshield had shattered and gave me the necessary emergency information to pass along.




Synopsis: ZMP Controller reported working an aircraft making an emergency descent to 10;000 feet.
Date: 201701
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Training / Qualification; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Received the message via ACARS that we had a potential tail tip condition just prior to top of descent. Since we were going to ZZZZ; we contacted dispatch. After initial confusion as to topic; we were informed that ZZZZ recovery crew was alerted. They do not understand what is required. The folks working ramp told us verbally after Captain inquired via open window that they had no stand and would have to open pit and take bags out. Jet bridge crew moved the jet bridge to the aircraft; and was knocking to have door opened; whilst flight crew was answering queries from flight attendants and instructing them not to open the door. Seat belt sign on the whole time; multiple announcements from cockpit to reinforce. Cockpit never received notification from ground crew about unloading. Watched pit doors opened and waited 5-6 minutes ... figuring that the bags were coming out and that the jet bridge was laying on top of aircraft. No issues with tipping.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that ground crew were not fully trained on the special handling procedures unique to the aircraft model.
Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Cruise; Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ; TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: I would like to bring awareness to similar call signs. We departed as flight 1234. We soon found we were following flight 3412 through similar airspace as we were switched to the same frequencies 4 times. While there were no errors on our part or ATC; the ATC controllers commented on this being a confusing situation. 3412 and 1234 are easily confused.




Synopsis: B737 pilot reported similar sounding call sign on the same route could have caused confusion.