elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201203
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAL.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: 4.5
Light: Night
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E ZMA
ATC / advisory: TRACON TPA
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Chart Or Publication; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While [we were] being vectored for the VOR 9 Approach at Lakeland Linder Regional (LAL) airport. On the left base leg vector; the pilot-controlled lighting was keyed up. The crew observed a brightly illuminated runway in the correct relative position with an East/West orientation. During the final approach course intercept at the initial approach fix altitude with runway alignment and raw data displaying on course (096 degrees). The pilot flying intercepted a normal visual glide path and began a descent to the MOA and runway. Upon realizing the DME did not cross check with the location; an immediate missed approach was conducted. At approximately 1;000 FT AGL; as a simultaneous 'Low Altitude' warning was issued from Tampa Approach; an initial climb and heading clearance was given. Subsequently; radar vectors were given for another VOR 9 approach into Lakeland. The crew completed a normal approach and uneventful landing at Lakeland. Suggest in the LAL/LAL VOR 9 chart briefing strip; a remark of: 'Plant City Airport may be mistaken for Lakeland Regional Airport due to similar runway alignment.'

Callback: The Reporter stated that the PCM lighting was activated almost simultaneously with them activating the LAL lighting. That event and the crew's inexperience on LAL approaches lead to the error. Also the fact that the two airport's runways are oriented almost identically and they are only eight miles apart contributed to the confusion.

Second narrative: [Narative #2 had no additional information.]


Synopsis: An Air Carrier crew confused PCM for LAL on a night VOR Runway 9 approach and executed a go around simultaneously with an ATC low altitude alert when they realized the airport identification error.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AZO.Airport, MI
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D AZO
ATC / advisory: Tower AZO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Enroute to AZO; I had briefed the 35 ILS approach. When we were close to AZO; the wind speed and direction made 35 unusable. We asked for vectors to set up for the RNAV 17 approach. I briefed the approach and we took vectors to the approach. During the approach; AZO tower advised us of a low altitude alert. I had inadvertently started down to minimums just prior to WURAX. I started back up; but we were crossing WURAX so I continued down to my MDA of 1200 feet MSL and continued to a normal landing. While discussing the approach at the gate; I realized I had descended to the LNAV/VNAV minimums 1200 feet. I should have stopped at the LNAV minimums of 1400 feet.After reviewing the Approach Plate; I realized that this approach plate had minimums for 3 different approaches. LPV; LNAV/VNAV; and LNAV. I had looked at the second box where LNAV minimums are on many charts. In the future I will be aware of the fact that there could be a LPV approach listed. In the future I will pay closer attention to the advisory VNAV.


Second narrative: This situation highlighted how workload can divert attention. I will be much more vigilant when plans change from the expected in the future. Great learning experience.


Synopsis: CRJ-900 flight crew reported receiving a low altitude alert from ATC on approach to AZO when they descended below charted altitude.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZTL.ARTCC, GA
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center ZTL
Second aircraft: MD-88
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working West departure R-Side. Atlanta was on an East operation; and TRACON was sending departures out on the North side. At ZELAN fix; they turn for their departure routes. The first one out was Aircraft X; and the second one was Aircraft Y flight. As they checked on frequency; I climbed them to FL230. About the time they got to ZELAN; I noticed a substantial overtake. My airspace starts at 15;000 FT; and below is Atlanta Approach. The aircraft were inside my airspace; same altitudes when I noticed; and asked the front aircraft to state his airspeed; he replied 250 KTS. I asked for faster; 280 KTS or greater; he agreed. I told Aircraft Y maintain 270 KTS or less. At ZELAN; Aircraft X turned south for the Jogar departure; about a 45 degree turn to the left. I told Aircraft Y to fly present heading; so he doesn't turn south; and create a faster divergence and separation. There rates of climb were the same; so I was trying to work the speeds out. It was about 4 minutes later I resumed Aircraft Y speed to normal when I had lateral separation. I had noticed there was still a 50 KTS overtake between the two of them. Altitudes were within 1;500 FT; and Aircraft Y had the head winds. It is not required for a pilot on climb out to fly a filed true airspeed. It is a recommended climb profile. It has happened several times that jets; including air carriers; will fly at 250 KTS on climb out to cruising altitudes. That's fine; but when I get 5 miles between airplanes climbing out of the TRACON; and they are running a departure rush; we don't have time to ask everybody airspeeds. The next best thing is to just issue everybody speeds. But if we do that that will back up approach when the smaller jets will do 280 KTS; and the bigger jets like to climb out at 330 KTS. The simplest thing is on any departure procedure coming out of Atlanta be it the ATL6 non RNAV or any RNAV; departures; 'If any turbojets climbing out above 10;000 FT; will be slower than 280 KTS; advise ATC'; it's not instructing the pilots to fly faster; it won't force pilots to fly faster by us; it will how ever let us know so we can plan accordingly.




Synopsis: ZTL Controller experienced a conflict with two successive departure aircraft; the reporter suggested that more detailed speed information is provided by the aircraft to permit improved controller planning.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: HLN.Airport, MT
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Bonanza 35
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class D HLN
ATC / advisory: Tower HLN
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was coming into HLN from the East on V2 at 11;000 feet MSL on an IFR flight plan. The conditions were IMC. At about 7 miles I broke out and had the airport in sight. The airport field elevation is 3;873 feet. I thought that I had clearance to descend to 9;000 feet; but that was not so.




Synopsis: A BE-35 pilot on an IFR flight plan descended below his cleared altitude inbound to HLN.
Date: 202003
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CZUL.ARTCC, PQ
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
ATC / advisory: Center CZUL
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: On initial climb out at approximately 1;000 ft. AGL; we got a wind shear warning from the aircraft. We performed the escape maneuver and climbed out of the condition. We believe it must have been CAT (Clear Air Turbulence) or wake turbulence from another aircraft that triggered the warning. Just prior to receiving it we encountered what appeared to be wake turbulence.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain reported a wind shear warning on departure.
Date: 201712
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AAO.Airport, KS
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E AAO
ATC / advisory: CTAF AAO
Second aircraft: Zenith Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft TA
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: [I] checked both communication radios with the airport base station using the Unicom/CTAF frequency. The AAO ASOS reported winds to be 4 to 6 kts from 10 degrees magnetic; indicating that runway 36 should be used. The wind socks also indicated that runway 36 should be used.The student pilot taxied to the runway 36 run up pad and completed a pre-takeoff check. Prior to takeoff; the pilots on board visually looked for traffic and listened on the CTAF frequency. No other traffic was observed or heard. On CTAF the student pilot announced that he was taking off on runway 36; taxied onto the runway and took off. Nearing the north end of the 6000 ft runway; climbing through 400 or 500 ft AGL; [we] both observed a yellow-colored target at [our] altitude on the onboard ADS-B Flight Information System (FIS). Seconds later the conflicting aircraft; believed to be a CH2T aircraft; was observed passing below [us] and then arcing to a SSE track. No communications were ever heard from the conflicting aircraft.Note: the FIS indicates conflicts; but does not recommend a course of action.[I] believe that the CH2T was practicing Runway 18 ILS approaches to AAO. Aircraft practicing instrument approaches into AAO normally make several announcements on the CTAF frequency - particularly when the approach is opposite the active runway direction.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a NMAC after departing AAO.
Date: 201906
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LNS.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Clear; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D LNS
ATC / advisory: Tower LNS
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: En-route to LNS I was cleared for practice RNAV31 @ LNS by approach. Contacted LNS tower. Heard ATC instruct Aircraft Y to change from 26 to right downwind for 31 and follow Aircraft X on approach.  ATC told Aircraft Y that Aircraft X was at it's 10 o'clock 2 miles.  Then told Aircraft Y traffic now at 12 o'clock at 1 mile.  ATC then contacted me (Aircraft X) that traffic was on right down wind for 31 at my 1 o'clock 1/2 mile.  I replied 'Looking for traffic'.  ATC instructed Aircraft Y to make a 30 degree turn to the left; I then saw something in my peripheral vision at approx. 3 to 4 o'clock. I looked and saw a plane at my altitude; about 1400 MSL; and I estimate about 200 feet away horizontally.  I immediately cut power and executed a left hand dive to avoid possible collision.  The aircraft had to have flown just over me and through the final approach path.  I must have squeezed the comm talk button on the yoke during the evasive maneuver and the ATC recording can hear me say 'Holy Sh*t' when I saw the aircraft.  Only after ATC asked Aircraft Y if he saw the traffic did its pilot confirm traffic.  I told ATC that when I get down I need to have a conversation with them and the pilot.  I was cleared to land and with very shaky hands;landed safely.  I was cleared by ATC to taxi to [parking] and then to call the tower when ready.




Synopsis: GA Pilot reported NMAC entering pattern while under ATC control requiring evasive maneuver.
Date: 201808
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Physical Injury / Incapacitation
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: We received a call from Flight Attendant B stating the brake on the galley cart failed and the cart had fallen on her. She stated she was sore but ok and did not need medical assistance. We told her to stay seated and then checked on her periodically. Then we contacted dispatch via ACARS and as soon as we landed he patched me into the Chief Pilot and Flight Attendant Manager. I notified the next crew about the cart and placed an Inoperative sticker on the cart. I drove the Flight Attendant to the urgent care who forwarded her to the emergency room then drove her back to the hotel. I also inspected the cart and the brake feels like it locks but it really doesn't.




Synopsis: Air carrier pilot reported a galley cart fell on fell on Flight Attendant causing an injury.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Hydraulic Main System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Declared Emergency
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff aircraft lost quantity and pressure in right hydraulic system. Emergency declared. Returned to [departure airport] and exercised captain's authority to land at a gross weight of 130;800 LBS. Maximum allowable landing gross weight for this model of airplane is 130;000 LBS. Landing was uneventful. Smooth touchdown. Overweight landing write-up entered aircraft logbook.




Synopsis: MD-83 Captain reported loss of right hydraulic system shortly after takeoff. Flight declared an emergency and returned to departure airport.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZDV.ARTCC, CO
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: Large Transport
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Our frequency transmitters have gotten noticeably worse in their range over the past several months; especially when in the mid-shift configuration. This was the primary cause of the loss of separation in my mind. I was working combined sectors at the mid setting. Aircraft Y was close to the sector boundary; and needed a handoff soon. Conflict alert went off with Aircraft X in the other sector's airspace; southwest bound into my airspace. I turned Aircraft Y to the left; as I needed to turn him anyway for route requirements. He did not respond. The Sector called me as I was issuing this turn; and had begun a turn to heading 200 on Aircraft X and was coordinating. I tried Aircraft Y again to turn him to the left to ensure separation. And then again; using a different transmitter; same result. At this point Aircraft X checked on heading 200. I responded; and was going to turn him further; but I thought it would be better to try Aircraft Y again since I knew he was on frequency. Again he did not respond.And then Aircraft Y checked on again; indicating he did not hear me respond to him the previous time. This was the point where I realized that we were [expletive]. So I just gave him a traffic call for his traffic; and that time he said roger. When he responded; and Aircraft Y finally responded; it was too late to take any further measures. It was a controlled situation; and the separation; while not the full 5 miles; was enough to not actually affect any aircraft safety whereas an immediate descent would definitely have. Fix the [expletive] radios. There are four transmitter sites for our mid frequency. Now every single one of the transmitters has horrible static issues and worse area coverage than ever. We have made countless complaints; but they fall on deaf ears. The only work that has been done is 'we will try resetting them;' to no avail. They really need to figure out what happened; and fix it so that something like this can be prevented.




Synopsis: ZDV ARTCC Controller reported being unable to communicate with aircraft due to faulty transmitters during mid-shift while working combined sectors.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 3
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Duchess 76
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Reciprocating Engine Assembly
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were being vectored for the ILS. The left tank was showing low; right tank had considerably more fuel; we decided to cross feed for the left Engine from the right fuel tank. After being on the localizer approaching final Approach fix the left Engine quit which caused the plane to roll to the left initially we recovered the aircraft. Tower saw we were off the localizer and wanted us to go back to Approach; we said we were unable; they insisted. At that point we felt the best decision for the safety of the aircraft; taking into consideration warm day density altitude; being in a light twin with not a ton of power to do a Single Engine climb was to continue straight to the runway because we had ground contact; broke out of the clouds and could see the airport.




Synopsis: BE76 Safety Pilot reported experiencing an engine failure during an ILS approach.