elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Aircraft component: Exterior Pax/Crew Door
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Gate Agent / CSR
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Gate; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Aircraft X had a ground interrupt in for an exterior 1L door handle being extended. This was noted by the ground crew or another aircraft after push-out. However; it was first noticed by the gate agent prior to push-out; who recommended maintenance be called. She was told by ramp control to ignore it and instructed to pull the jetbridge. She related this account to crew chief and mechanic after the aircraft returned. Furthermore; ramp control announced over the radio that the plane was returning to the gate and 'they will reset the door.' It sounded as though another department was going to 'reset' the door. I immediately sent out the aforementioned crew chief and mechanic only to discover ramp control had been meddling with the airplane from the start to guarantee a timely departure. Ramp control must have a safety culture to advise maintenance of safety concerns.




Synopsis: A B737 had a ground interrupt due to the exterior 1L door handle reported as being extended. Aircraft returned to the gate and Maintenance was called.
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MMEX.ARTCC, FO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center MMEX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Distraction; Confusion
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Procedure; Company Policy
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: We downloaded via datalink our route per the new Sabre flight plan. When we received our clearance by radio from MEX clearance delivery; it was slightly different from what we were filed. We were filed APN UJ15 TAM J177.... We were cleared BETER4 departure to BETER then as filed (which is what was read back). During climbout; after passing BETER; ATC asked if we were proceeding direct TAM. We responded we were proceeding to XOSOX; UJ15 to TAM. Nothing else was said by ATC; but we thought is was a strange question; so we looked back at the departure; and noted that BETER intersection is not on UJ15. We concluded that we possibly should have joined J177 at BETER and proceeded via J177 to TAM. I think a combination of Clearance Delivery ambiguity and non-standard delivery may have lead to the confusion. Also; the fact that we were having additional trouble obtaining revised Takeoff Data via ACARS; may have lead to the distraction of not entering the correct routing.


Second narrative: We were unable to gain access to operations in MEX. The SABRE flight plan was delivered to us by station personal. I used the local internet connection to access WSI for graphical weather information. We entered the BETER 4 departure into the FMGC and it changed the route to 'VISOS BETER UJ15 XOSOK TAM J177 PSX.' We both checked the route and it looked correct.  This was only my second flight with the new SABRE flight plan and the training on how to use this flight plan was very minimal and not timely (there were two months between my training date and the SABRE Flight plan turn on date). Confusion over this new flight plan; how it is depicted; and how it is downloaded into the FMGC contributed to this navigation error.


Synopsis: An Airbus crew new to the SABRE format; misread a SABRE flight plan FMGC presentation and after departing MEX. They had a track deviation because they failed to recognized a difference in the Clearance Delivery routing.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BOS.Tower, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: Tower BOS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On very short final to 4L in BOS last night; we took a pretty good jet blast jolt from an aircraft departing on 9. It was only momentary; but was a definite slap.  That could have been an issue especially with lighter aircraft.  We were through it in a second.  Trouble I see with this particular issue is split frequencies for Tower operations. We did not see this aircraft as lights blended in at night and watching our own operations. First Officer said he saw the other aircraft late but wasn't able to say anything until after the fact. Happened pretty quickly. Landed without incident. I find it frustrating to not be able to hear other operations around me due to split frequencies; but I understand the need for their use. I think that maybe a better way to communicate information like departing; landing aircraft in this type of situation would help us all plan.  I have noticed a marked increase in wake encounters behind other aircraft on these SIDs and STARs. All goes to thinking about spacing to reduce these issues.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported jet blast encounter from a departing aircraft on Runway 9 at BOS while landing on Runway 4. Reporter cited split Tower frequencies as contributing.
Date: 201604
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation I/SP (C501)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was a making visual approach to a private landing strip that was having a fly-in with no intention of landing there. On the missed approach an individual ran out on the runway to take a picture and I was low. There was no incident; but for safety reasons I feel obligated to acknowledge it.




Synopsis: CE501 pilot reported executing a missed approach at an airport that was hosting a fly-in. An individual ran onto the runway to take photographs during the miss.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class B ZZZ; Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Staffing; Company Policy
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: FLM was working combined positions and was absolutely inundated with VFRs and IFR aircraft.  FLM is a good Controller; but no one could have reasonably been expected to deal with that number of aircraft safely. Numerous safety events happened during this session.  The one I noticed in particular even though I had my own traffic.  Aircraft X was told to follow freeway north which the pilot did.  He just kept on going and probably went 10 miles north before anyone talked to him.  He was out of our airspace in within TRACON airspace.  He was also routed through numerous aircraft holding around ZZZ a satellite airport.  The OM then seemed to blame the pilot for not calling.  No way for the pilot to call if he can't get a word in edge wise.1.  No OT used and we are operating with 3 CPCs and an FLM when normal numbers are 8 and an FLM due to quarantine from a COVID positive.  We also had the OM that can't plug in and help if he needs to.  2.  The ATM WILL NOT USE TMI for staffing because of political pressure not because it isn't needed. TMI for staffing have been definitely needed especially this week with 15 ish controllers out of 25 on quarantine.  3.  The OM knew this was an issue because he called the flight schools the day before to tell them not to fly during certain times the day before and failed to tell them the same thing for this day.  The OM failed in very dramatic fashion and threw his own supervisor to the proverbial wolves.




Synopsis: Tower Controller reported the Front Line Manager was inundated with VFR and IFR traffic while working a combined position.
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: TRACON RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: During visual approach landing south at RNO; given an early clearance for a visual approach; configured aircraft early in order to lose altitude; extended out on downwind as long as ATC would allow. [I] turned from downwind straight to final as ATC as attempting to place us ahead of another aircraft for landing. During turn to final had a GPWS 'Sink Rate' warning while still early on approach. Corrected sink rate and continued approach to landing. I felt we were within the stabilized approach criteria upon reaching 500 AGL for visual. Landing was normal at RNO. Received call from FOQA Gatekeeper [who advised] upon reviewing flight data as having been flagged for excessive angle of bank (39); sink rate and a terrain notification. Discussed incident with FOQA Gatekeeper and was advised to file ASAP on incident. As previously mentioned I did hear a sink rate call but not a terrain call by EGPWS. I did acknowledge that it was a tight turn to final but since [I was] visual didn't realize the bank angle increased to 39 degrees during the turn. Do not let ATC prompt an early turn to final to satisfy their flow requirements. Take the extra few minutes and miles to reduce the time compression.


Second narrative: During a visual approach into Reno we received a 'terrain' warning. We were turning toward final and at about 2;000 FT we received an aural 'terrain' warning. I was the not flying pilot and as I verbalized to decrease the descent rate the flying pilot did so. We were stabilized by 1;000 FT AGL and landed. The weather was clear sky and unlimited visibility.


Synopsis: MD-83 flight crew reported they exceeded some FOQA parameters on a visual approach to RNO. Pilot not flying reported hearing a 'Terrain' warning while the pilot flying heard only a 'Sink Rate' and continued the approach.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: SBN.Airport, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SBN
ATC / advisory: TRACON SBN
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying along at 4000 ft direct to MISHA (outer Marker). HDG was approximately 255-265 degrees. The Pilot Flying grabbed my attention with an OH SUGAR!! I started to scan for incoming hazards and things that could have been wrong such as; a wrong altimeter setting or the FMS acting funny. I then could see the pilot flying (PF) reaching for the controls to disconnect the autopilot at this time an aircraft began to come into my peripheral vision from left to right. I could see the belly; panels and detailed paintings on the aircraft as it crossed over the center pillar into my central vision. It looked to be a single engine warbird navy blue in color with decals on the wings. Milliseconds prior to this time period the PF began an abrupt aggressive maneuver in pitch up and shallow turn to the left. Autopilot warning was going off and stick shaker was activated I could see the warbirds right wing getting closer and thought for sure the planes would have come in contact with each other. It also looked as if the warbird was doing a climbing left hand turn; like a chandelle. Our aircraft had gained altitude and as I looked back behind us out of the right window I could see the warbird parallel to us with its propeller facing us at the same level shallowing out its turn. Our TCAS did not go off due to the warbird not having a transponder or in the on position. We were never notified of a primary target. We returned to assigned altitude and heading. The rest of the 6 minute flight was no eventful and I am glad to be alive. [I suggest] all Aircraft have working transponders.


Second narrative: After the event we proceeded to make a normal visual approach and landing in SBN.


Synopsis: CRJ200 flight crew reports a NMAC with a warbird at 4000 feet east of SBN. Evasive action is taken by both aircraft and a collision is narrowly avoided.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: GA2.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Aerobatics
Flight phase: Landing; Descent
Airspace: Class G ZTL
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: T6A Texan II / Harvard II (Raytheon)
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Not Flying; Observer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Observer
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The operator of Aircraft X visited GA2. The pilot announced his arrival by making a high-speed low buzzing pass of the airfield as he passed the restaurant at the departure end of Runway 13. He then returned; landed and visited the airport; probably the restaurant. Upon departure on Runway 31 at approximately just as he cleared the trees along the departure end of the runway; the pilot rolled right in a steep bank at maybe 200 to 300 ft. and then at an approximately north heading immediately rolled left to make a steep 270 degree turn to return to the airfield in alignment with Runway 13. He proceeded to make a diving high speed approach to Runway 31 landing gear retracted; and reduced altitude to approximately 20 to 30 ft. at the departure end of the runway next to the restaurant. He rolled right to about a 30 to 45 degree bank and steeply climbed out very close to the restaurant. He was definitely not on the extended center line of the runway. The restaurant is only 300 to 400 ft. off the center line of the runway to the south. This is a common 'airshow' performance at this airport; even though we do not have authorized airshows here. The restaurant is a destination for show-off pilots; and this has become commonplace behavior. These are clear violations of the FAR's; and are extremely reckless. Although reports have been made to the FAA; they don't seem to care; and so it continues. It's only a matter of time before someone makes a mistake or has an equipment failure and ends up crashing into the restaurant; or the neighborhood homes.




Synopsis: A person reported an aircraft conducted low level aerobatics over a populated area and buildings in the vicinity of the runway.
Date: 201311
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Marginal
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Learjet 35
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach; placed the gear in the down position. Observed 2 green and 2 red lights. The nose and right main gear were down and locked the left main did not indicate it was down and locked. I notified the PIC. Tested the gear lights; [and] then recycled the gear. Full up; then full down to see if they would come down and lock. The gear did not. We then notified the Control Tower we were having gear problems and we needed to do a few turns around the airport to run the checklist and see if we could get the gear down. We did the Emergency Gear Down checklist. Used the air-bottle. It didn't work to get the gear down and locked. Then we notified the Tower that our gear was not coming down and we wanted to go to [a nearby airport] to land. Switched to Approach [and] notified we were an emergency aircraft; we had our nose wheel and right main down and locked; but we didn't have the left main down and locked. We were then vectored for the visual low pass for the Tower to take a look at our gear. Tower advised they had 2 people in the Tower that observed 3 gear. Completed the low pass vectored for visual 26R. While on downwind encountered wake turbulence from the MD80 ahead; 3 green and 2 red indicated on gear indicator. Notified ATC we had 3 down and locked. Landed and taxied in. This aircraft had been written up for gear related issues [twice in the recent past] and returned to service.




Synopsis: Lear 35 First Officer reported problems with the gear indicator lights that were eventually resolved; resulting in a normal landing.
Date: 201312
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: Tower BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The First Officer was flying a left base leg direct to the FAF for Runway 10 at BWI. The First Officer set 1;500 feet in MCP window and started a slow Vertical Speed descent from 3;000 feet. At approximately 1;800 MSL the Obstacle Alert sounded. The First Officer leveled [the] aircraft. I then took manual control and initiated a climb. The EGPWS changed to a PULL UP Alert. I pitched up and rapidly increased thrust to correct the flight path (go-around started). Once we climbed to approximately 2;300 FT; conditions returned to normal. We then decided to restart the [descent]; the First Officer became flying pilot again and continued the approach to landing.


Second narrative: While descending to 1;500 MSL (the FAF alt) on an extended left base to a visual approach for Runway 10; we received an Obstacle Alert.After climbing approximately 300 FT; the alerts subsided and the approach was continued uneventfully. Simultaneously; as we were executing the procedure; we noticed several towers in our vicinity and assume that was the cause of our alert.A more detailed chart review would have revealed the towers' existence and resulted in an intermediate level off until they were visually identified.


Synopsis: While descending on a base leg direct to the FAF; cleared for a visual approach to Runway 10 at BWI and planning to cross the FAF at the ILS charted 1;500 MSL the flight crew of a B737NG experienced an EGPWS terrain warning and directive to 'pull up'. They did so and; when the alarm silenced continued to a safe landing.