elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: CLE.Airport, OH
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E CLE
ATC / advisory: TRACON CLE
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While working the Inner Low position (Final Controller) the Outer Controller (Feeder position) handed off to me Air Carrier XXXX however Air Carrier XXXY took the frequency change. Air Carrier XXXY checked in with me and I was expecting Air Carrier XXXX. On initial contact with me I over emphasized the [last digit] in the call sign after the pilot checked in calling himself Air Carrier XXXY. I issued Air Carrier XXXX a decent clearance over emphasizing the [last digit] in the call sign again. Air Carrier XXXY read back the decent clearance and I restated Air Carrier XXXX. At that time the outer controller told me that Air Carrier XXXX was still on his frequency so looked at all of his traffic to see if any aircraft took an incorrect decent clearance and saw that he had a Air Carrier XXXY and in fact that aircraft was descending. There were no traffic conflictions and I pointed out the traffic to the CLE departure position since the aircraft would be entering his airspace. The point out was approved and I kept Air Carrier XXXY on my frequency till he was switched to the Tower on final. Continue to work with the airlines to remove similar sounding call signs. Also for me to not assume that over emphasis is enough to make sure the right aircraft received the correct clearance.




Synopsis: CLE Controller described an airspace incursion when an aircraft initiated a descent issued to a same company aircraft with a similar sounding four digit flight number.
Date: 201406
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: Tower LAS
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On arrival 7 mile final for Runway 1L encountered wake vortices from preceding B737 [that] overshot final 1L from the right while he was cleared for visual to 1R approximately two miles ahead. Vortices caused roll beyond 30 degrees right bank followed by roll to the left as we passed through his vortices two times (he crossed our arrival two times). Both we and [B737] were cleared for visual and we had them in sight at all times. All roll moments were smooth with no abrupt turbulence impact. Landing [was] uneventful.




Synopsis: MD-83 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to LAS that resulted in 30 degree roll both sides. Wake was generated by preceding B737 that crossed his arrival path.
Date: 202006
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Minimum Equipment List (MEL)
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; MEL; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was made aware that Aircraft X had overflown a few repetitive inspections. It was determined that the re-inspect items were FACTED out [in the program] rather than deferred; continue inspection. [The] desk advised myself and another [technician] that the MOD should stop the aircraft due to the overfly condition. I had just came on shift when this occurred. I coordinated with the Workload Supervisor to have the FACT removed and made into an INFO item; so that the TII's could be assigned to ZZZ for the Overnight BOW. The items were again FACTED out by ZZZ and again changed to an INFO [item] and the aircraft continued on the next day.I suspect that when the mechanic FACTED out the item; his only option were to either DEFER; which he wouldn't do since he did the inspection; or ACCOMPLISH; wherein he take accountability for his inspection. Sometimes SAFE provided the mechanic with ACCOMPLISHED-RE-INSPECT; and those are put into SAFE as an INFO.Ensure that the mechanic is given a drop down menu option of ACCOMPLISHED-RE-INSPECT; rather than just ACCOMPLISHED; so that he and his station may take credit for the work assigned to the BOW. In addition; the AFMM 20.11.33 states; if not repaired within the 120-day limit; Maintenance Control can extend the TII or MON (Monitor) for an additional 120-day period. Maintenance Control can extend this terminating action limit as many times as required until downtime; parts and manpower are available to address the deferral. This extension and continuing re-inspect will create opportunities for instances such as this to occur. My recommendation is that the 120 day permanent repair be held firm; with no extension.




Synopsis: Technician reported that aircraft overflew required reinspections due to improper computer entries.
Date: 201701
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LSE.Airport, WI
Weather elements / visibility: Snow
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: CTAF LSE
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While enroute to LSE we requested an updated FICON (Field Conditions) report from dispatch. Approximately 7 minutes prior to landing; we received the report indicating that the latest FICON was done only 4 minutes prior to us receiving the report and it indicated runway 18/36 was 5/5/5 with 1/8 in Dry snow. When we touched down on the runway; we encountered slippery conditions with poor to fair braking action with approximately 1 in snow 100% of the runway with approximately 5 in snowdrifts and no sign of any plowing or other vehicle tracks. We were able to stop the aircraft on the runway. After taxiing to the gate and shutting down the aircraft; that Captain and I had a conversation with the LSE Station manager about the FICON report. They stated that they updated the report; as they are required to do every 30 min but noted that the last actual FICON report was from several hours earlier and they just updated the old report with the current time they read the old report from the airport authority's website. They also stated that there were airport staff on duty at the time but they have not been out inspecting the airport runway conditions. They also stated that there has been an ongoing issue with getting the correct FICON data between the company ground services at LSE and the airport and they didn't know who to contact to get this fixed. Her meetings with the airport staff did not fix the communication issue. During the taxi ride to our hotel the captain contacted a dispatch supervisor and told them what had happened. Had we known the actual runway conditions we would have diverted and never attempted to land at LSE.To avoid a recurrence of this event; the Airport personnel responsible for inspecting the runways should actively update the FICON report with current information. The station manager should not blindly put old information into the FICON report that is from old reports and should indicate on her reports that the information is old. They should have also indicated that the field conditions were not what was indicated; as the ground crew had to plow the ramps so we could see the lines to taxi to the gate.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer landing at LSE received a field conditions report indicating good braking action. The braking action was not good and there was unreported snow on the runway.
Date: 201504
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: XS09.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28 Cherokee/Archer/Dakota/Pillan/Warrior
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZHU
Second aircraft: AH-64 Apache
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was flying my PA-28 about 1500 feet MSL above XS09; in clear daytime conditions. I noted an Army Apache helicopter on an intercept course with me at my 11 o'clock position. I immediately diverted to decrease climb and pass under and to the left of the helicopter. As the course of the helicopter was closing toward my right; I had to decrease altitude and dive to the left to avoid collision. The helicopter did not appear to divert or change course at all. If the pilot was looking out the aircraft windscreen or windows; he must have seen my aircraft closing toward him. After diversion; I did call Houston Approach who reported no unusual or other report from any aircraft in the area.I do know the Army maintains a flight wing of Apache helicopters in CXO and often flies in the area. My point is; that Estates airpark is a small private grass strip that has relatively frequent general aviation traffic in its vicinity. This advanced military traffic; likely has TCAS of some sort but otherwise; needs to observe VFR rules and avoid other traffic. Collision in this case would not have been my fault as; obviously; the helicopter is much more maneuverable than my single engine Piper.




Synopsis: PA-28 student pilot experiences an airborne conflict with an Army helicopter over XS09 at 1500 feet. The reporter takes evasive action to avoid a collision and believes the helicopter pilot did not see the PA-28; as it did not alter its course.
Date: 201905
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Lost situational awareness in relation to altitude at DARRK as attention was focused on staying above wake turbulence from a heavy B777 just in front and above on same departure routing. Continually in and out of what felt like the wake turbulence from the B777 throughout the departure. A couple of miles from DARRK I noticed we were climbing through 13;500 feet and altitude requirement at DARKK was at or below 12;000 feet. I verbalized the potential altitude deviation to the Captain; he attempted to correct the situation by stopping the climb and starting a shallow descent. I quickly called ATC (SoCal departure) and confessed that we would NOT be at or below 12;000 at DARRK; immediately we were cleared to climb and maintain FL230 prior to crossing DARRK.




Synopsis: B737 NG First Officer reported climbing above an altitude restriction departing LAX when they were distracted by wake turbulence from the preceding B777.
Date: 201209
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Aircraft: Cessna 210 Centurion / Turbo Centurion 210C; 210D
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Ground Event / Encounter Gear Up Landing
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: [I was] coming in for landing following checklist/procedures. Upon touch down gear did not deploy. [I] had green gear light. FAA Inspector was present and advised it appeared to be a mechanical malfunction.




Synopsis: C210 pilot reported he landed with green landing gear light but the gear had apparently not extended.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HFD.Airport, CT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cheetah; Tiger; Traveler AA5 Series
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower HFD
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Strike - Aircraft; Ground Excursion Runway; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Return flight to home airport with newly purchased AA5B.  Went around twice when approach to land was too high with too much airspeed.  On third try got airspeed and height to appropriate levels. Descended to runway between 65 and 70 knots.  Crossed threshold and cut power to idle.  Began flare to keep nose up and stalled about 10' above runway.  Bounced on main wheels and a second time in a nose down attitude causing a prop strike.  There was a third bounce on mains that was not as severe as the first or second.When first bounce occurred I added power.  After plane had settled on the runway it became obvious that it was not gaining sufficient speed to get airborne.  Applied brakes but went off the end of the runway approximately 50' (well short of any obstacles or hazards).Communicated with tower and then ground to taxi back to hangar.  Tower asked me to copy a number to call.  Copied number after shutdown and called number shortly thereafter.  Spoke with someone in the tower and gave them name; address; phone; tail and pilot numbers.Inspected plane after shutdown at the hangar.  Both prop tips were bent back about 5' from their ends.  No other apparent damage to the aircraft.The situation was the result of approach to landing and flaring too high (I was especially careful to get the airspeed right as I knew there was a tendency to land long with the AA5B).  Previous plane was a Piper Cherokee that was far more forgiving.  There had been several times when I flared too high in the Cherokee and landed hard.  But; as the landing gear on the Cherokee absorbed the hard descent; a similar landing in the AA5B resulted in a bounce.  More time should have been spent in my initial training and in the three biennial reviews that I've had on landing.  In all those cases it was more or less assumed that I knew how to land and not much time was spent on that aspect of flight.




Synopsis: AA5B pilot reported a hard landing that resulted in a prop strike and runway excursion.
Date: 202002
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: FLL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground FLL
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
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: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Landed ZZZ Runway 28L; cleared onto Taxiway J5 and instructed by Tower to proceed on taxiways Juliet and Quebec and to contact ground on 121.4. Upon checking in with ground and informing them we were parking at [gate]; Ground Control issued instructions to taxi via Quebec; Sierra; Bravo to C3. Unbeknownst to us; Aircraft Y had landed Runway 28R and contacted ground approximately 30-40 seconds prior to us; being given clearance to taxi to [gate] via Charlie; Sierra and Bravo. We were north eastbound on taxiway Sierra approaching taxiway Charlie when I heard the Captain say; 'WHOA;' with concurrent firm but controlled braking to a complete stop. I had to lean forward to get a view past her head towards our 7 to 8 o'clock position in order to see that she had stopped our aircraft within approximately one aircraft width of Aircraft Y; who had also come to an abrupt stop on taxiway Charlie as it approaches taxiway Sierra. I immediately queried ground control about our taxi clearance; to which the controller replied; 'Aircraft X; turn right on Bravo and contact ramp control.' I recognized that he had lost situational awareness on our position; as well as Aircraft Y; and wanted him to re-clarify whether he wanted us to proceed; or Aircraft Y. His response seemed to indicate that he had lost situational awareness; as he responded to us; but in the same transmission; attempted to give Aircraft Y instructions as well. I then requested permission to continue; which he gave us; and then he called Aircraft Y back and apologized; issuing instructions to have them follow us in. While a collision was avoided; this was obviously an error by the Ground Controller who issued separate taxi instructions to both us and Aircraft Y via taxiways Sierra and Bravo without issuing a hold short for either aircraft to give way. In the end; due to the arrangements of the taxiways both aircraft were on as we merged and visibility from the respective cockpits; it was most likely our Captain and the Aircraft Y First Officer who were the only two people who were able to see and avoid a potentially disastrous situation.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported that ATC gave the same taxi clearance to two aircraft; resulting in a critical ground conflict.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Next Generation Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight was deviating off the ZZZZZ arrival due to thunderstorm activity. Subsequently cleared direct ZZZZZ and told to descend to 5;000 feet. While it is possible both the Captain and FO (First Officer) heard the wrong altitude; the FO read back 5;000 feet. Even though the published altitude is 6;000 feet; this did not seem unusual to us as we were flying below storm overhangs and had barely flown any of the arrival up to this point.  After reaching 5;000; the controller asked why we were at 5;000. We informed him that was our cleared altitude. He informed us 6;000 was the minimum vectoring altitude.


Second narrative: On arriving into ZZZ; we were taken off the ZZZZZ4 arrival due to thunderstorms in the terminal area. Upon contact with Terminal Radar Control we were issued radar vectors. The Air Traffic Controller stated that we would rejoin the arrival at ZZZZZ. We were told to fly heading 090 and cleared to descend from 9;000 to 6;000. The clearance was read back and confirmed by both of us. Shortly thereafter the controller gave us a further descent down to 5;000. The clearance was read back and confirmed by both of us. After the clearance was read back; ATC never intervened on the altitude that we read back. ATC then told us to fly direct to ZZZZZ. Whilst we were level at ZZZZZ at 5;000; ATC stated that [the next fix] had an altitude of 6;000 ft. I stated that we were cleared by him down to 5;000. There were no traffic conflicts.


Synopsis: Flight crew reported descending 1000 feet below minimum altitude on approach as cleared by ATC.