elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Night
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 129
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZOA
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: [Aircraft X] was descending on the BDEGA1 Arrival. They were told to descend via landing runway 28L and turned on the 28R routing at CORKK.I've consulted with people and they say nothing will be done until [Month X] on the charting date. I say this is unacceptable; and horribly unsafe and is not an answer in the interest of safety. This will be the first report of three that will be filed in just two sessions at the Boulder sector. I had another one last week; but was too busy to get to the report. I know I am not the only one filing these; but if I don't see a change in the interest of safety; I will not be wasting my time on any further reports and will look toward other avenues to get this fixed.




Synopsis: NCT Controller reports of a problem with aircraft that do not fly the correct approach to the correct runway.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Citation Excel (C560XL)
Operator: Fractional
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Aircraft component: Elevator Trim System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Other unknown
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Workload; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Prior to takeoff all checks had been completed; trim was in the middle of [the] Take Off window; flaps 7 were set and no caution lights were illuminated.  Immediately after liftoff and prior to flaps up the Pilot Flying complained of excessive pitch up forces and was using a great deal of force to keep the aircraft from over pitching.   When I checked it appeared to be between 15 to 20 degrees pitch up.  He rolled in a great deal of nose down pitch with the manual trim wheel; we raised flaps and continued the flight uneventfully.  Once we were able we referred to the QRH and did not find anything specific to this condition.  I emailed Flight Control and Maintenance Control to inform them of the situation and we continued on to our destination.  On the prior flight as pilot flying I had experienced some additional nose up force but not to the degree the pilot flying today experienced.  I was able to control the pitch up with yoke input and electric trim so I did not write it up as I did not think it was a maintenance issue with the airplane. The Pilot Flying contacted an experienced company pilot who informed him that he had this happen before and it was due to the trim rigging coming out of adjustment so that the trim position in the cockpit was not indicating correctly which makes sense.  I do not know if that is the issue with the aircraft in today's flight but if it is; we should be providing training of the possibility and how to react to it such as having both pilots apply pressure to the yoke.  While it is similar to a run away pitch trim that is a gradual change while this was immediate.  Awareness of this possibility would allow pilots who experience some extra pitch forces as I had the day before may consider that it is a precursor to something going wrong with the airplane.




Synopsis: A Citation pilot reported experiencing their aircraft unexpectedly pitched up on two different occasions and was informed by another pilot they had experienced the same issue.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: AVL.Tower, NC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C AVL
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 2 Eng; Retractable Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I cleared Aircraft Z to land on a 10 mile final. Shortly after Aircraft Y called ready for takeoff. Upon performing my scan; I noticed an aircraft drop off my scope; I looked out the window and performed a quick scan of final but ultimately believed the aircraft was a 090 overflight entering the 'cone of silence' the area directly above the radar; that radar east had previously called about for info. I cleared Aircraft Y for takeoff and he promptly told me he was going to wait; I asked for clarification and he said he would hold short of the runway for landing traffic.I thought he was talking about Aircraft X on 10 mile final but upon a thorough scan I spotted an aircraft on about a 2 mile final. Aircraft Z had dropped off radar early and was not on the last to land list; I picked up the binoculars to identify the aircraft and reached out to him with no answer. I then canceled Aircraft Y takeoff clearance and advised Ground Control of a No Radio aircraft. Aircraft Z turned onto B4 taxiway and called Ground Control where he was issued the brasher warning.




Synopsis: AVL Local Controller reported a ground conflict between an aircraft on final that was NORDO and a departure.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 1/4
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 145 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: After we were cleared for the ILS approach to Runway 36C; but still well outside the OM; we noticed an RA miss comparison message on our PFD's. The First Officer's RA was registering 25 feet when we were above 3;000 feet. I decided to continue the approach as a Cat I monitored approach instead of a Cat II approach. Upon reaching DH we did not see the runway environment and executed a missed approach. Due to the problem we encountered earlier with the First Officer's RA; I decided it was safer to divert to our filed alternate; and once on the ground; I could coordinate with both Maintenance and Dispatch as to the best course of action to complete the flight safely to our destination. Maintenance MEL'd the First Officer's RA; dispatch issued a new release. We completed a successful CAT II approach and landing without any further complications. The threats for this flight were the weather at our destination along with the weather at our alternate. The failure of the First Officer's RA during a critical phase of flight. Another threat I want to bring up is one that I consider to be a serious threat to aircraft safety. While on the ILS approach to Runway 36C; and inside the OM; we heard the Tower clear a departing aircraft into position and subsequent take off from Runway 36C. This seems to me as a clear violation according to JO7110.65U section 7 (3-7-5 #2). Unfortunately this is not the first time I have witnessed these actions from tower controllers.




Synopsis: Air Carrier conducting a CAT II ILS 36C at CLT; and inside the OM; expressed concern regarding the fact that ATC allowed a take off; noting ATC's failure to comply with 7110.65 requirements.
Date: 202008
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: LAX.Airport, CA
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground LAX
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Procedure; Chart Or Publication; Human Factors; Airport
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On taxi out in LA we were given taxi instructions to taxi to 25R via Bravo. Captain and I discussed the 'all aircraft hold here' sign that used to be displayed near taxiway Foxtrot. Approaching Foxtrot we did not see a sign with the all aircraft stop here and being on the AMM (Airport Moving Map) display on the iPad did not see a reference to holding at Foxtrot. With the sign no longer visible we preceded to the hold short line of 25R. Captain later in flight found the note on the 10-9 page stating all aircraft are to hold short of Foxtrot until cleared by tower.


Second narrative: We were cleared to taxi to 25R via B. I repeated taxi instructions to FO (First Officer) and began taxi. There were no aircraft taxiing in front of us. As we taxied the FO and I discussed that we both remembered a sign around taxi-way F telling all aircraft to hold short. As we approached F we both agreed that there was no such sign. I continued to taxi to hold short position for 25R. After departure I reread 10-7 pages and taxi chart. I found a note on 10-9 chart stated that all aircraft are to hold short of F.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew taxiing wide-body aircraft mis-interpret missing hold short sign.
Date: 202201
Location: DIA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV; Class B DEN
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Aircraft component: GPS & Other Satellite Navigation
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Distraction; Workload; Confusion; Human-Machine Interface
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Ground Equipment Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Software and Automation
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: 5G interferences on takeoff.  Lost both GPS's.  Runway 25 Sleek2 SID;  frequency 128.45 at 6;000 ft. got left GPS invalid.   At 11;700 ft. got right GPS invalid.  A 22;000 feet got Right GPS back; at 25;000 feet got left GPS back.   On initial loss contacted ATC; they gave us heading and altitude.  ATC says this has been going on for a while; also heard other planes in same situation




Synopsis: An Air Carrier Captain departing DIA reported loss of GPS signal.
Date: 201606
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SFO.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B SFO
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Second aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: NEAR MID AIR COLLISION on Final SFO 28R.On FMS Bridge approach Runway 28R; VFR conditions; ATC notified us of parallel traffic at 9 o'clock. We called traffic in sight and runway in sight. I chose to increase speed and lower landing gear to get down faster so as to avoid wing tip flying and have forward separation. At approximately 2800 feet MSL we got a traffic alert TCAS from a different aircraft below moving left to right. At 2600 feet MSL we got a TCAS RA; 'Monitor Vertical Speed'. I immediately leveled off and we visually acquired a VFR small aircraft flying right under us. Our TCAS altitude showed 300 feet below. We notified ATC we were complying with RA and shortly after the RA disappeared. Even though we were below 3 degree glide path on the visual approach we were still above the 2200 feet MSL restriction. After clearing that traffic we got another traffic alert for the parallel [aircraft]. We remained well north of the centerline until he passed us (we had slowed down during the TCAS maneuver as I had auto throttles off and was focused on VSI. With the parallel traffic past us we rejoined final approach and continued to landing.After landing I spoke with ATC about the event and they said we had come within 0.16NM and 600 feet on final approach. Our TCAS indications were showing 300 feet separation. This airport's visuals and the [Company] SOP leave pilots unacceptably at risk for mid-air collision. Had I left the TCAS in TA only we would not have had separation guidance because SOP recommends to turn [RA] off when parallel traffic [is] in sight. I planned to descend to 2200 feet MSL bottom altitude and would have collided with [the other] aircraft had I complied with SOP. Wingtip flying at this airport is unsafe with no real training or established rules and the added SOP to turn off the TCAS guidance continues to be a high risk safety item that needs to be immediately changed.




Synopsis: An air carrier Captain reported being notified that another air carrier also on approach to SFO would be landing on a parallel runway. The crew then received a TCAS RA from a small aircraft that was below them.
Date: 201812
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Ramp
Human factors: Workload; Physiological - Other; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy; Staffing
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I take medication for hypertension and high blood pressure. I am a Lead Ramp Service Employee. Approximately 6.5 hours into my shift; my crew and myself were experiencing symptoms of fatigue related to being working outside without a lunch period. I spoke with [Supervisor] and informed him that I was feeling light headed and hungry and needed to eat. He informed me that everyone is busy and cannot relieve me. After he left; my crew and I continued to work the flight. After another hour passed; after I push [the next flight]; I returned to the gate and there was another aircraft/flight holding short waiting to come into the gate. I called the [Supervisor] again and informed him that my crew was exhausted and they needed a break to eat. I stood outside and sat on a set of chocks on the gate and informed the [Supervisor] again that I was not feeling good and that I needed sustenance. He said OK that he was coming to the gate. I felt dizzy and lightheaded and very nauseous. While sitting down the [Supervisor] came and witnessed me vomiting on the ground right there where I sat. I almost passed out. He then got someone else to do the flight and took me against the building where he called the EMS and they came and told me that I had Low blood sugar and that I needed to eat something to regain my blood sugar levels. After that I ate and felt 100% better.




Synopsis: Ramp employee reported becoming ill with low blood sugar after working for almost 8 hours without a break.
Date: 201808
Location: 47N.Airport, NJ
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Personal
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Airport; Airspace Structure; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The TFR in place at Bedminster; New Jersey places airport 47N within the 30NM ring. This; of course; requires pilots to be on an IFR flight plan or have a VFR flight plan on file; and have a transponder code and communication with ATC. For those of us who operate at this airport; we have been told by ATC that we are unable to depart IFR; unless able to climb in VMC to the Minimum Vectoring Altitude (MVA) of 2000 ft. We have been told that the reason for this is that SBJ VOR is the only IFR departure fix that has been flight tested for this airport and SBJ is within the 10NM 'no fly' ring of the TFR. This restriction is causing undue burden on the pilots wishing or needing to depart in IFR conditions from 47N. This restriction is effectively denying access to the flying public from using their own tax-payer-funded public ATC system. With the vagaries of weather reporting; this restriction is potentially encouraging unsafe practices by encouraging pilots to depart in marginal conditions in order to pick up and continue on their IFR flight plan. Anecdotally; I understand that there are other nearby non-towered airports where this same problem exists. The solution to this is to flight test one or more additional departure fixes that lie outside the 10NM TFR ring.




Synopsis: Pilot reported difficulties in resolving airspace conflicts with a TFR which overlies airport 47N.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BJC.Tower, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Transport
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
ATC / advisory: Tower BJC
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Ground
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The Local Controller attempted to cross Aircraft Y in front of Aircraft X that was still in the middle of its landing roll. Separation at the beginning of Local's transmission to cross was less than 1000 feet. I was on Ground Control and heard the Local Controller begin to cross Aircraft Y and yelled at him to stop Aircraft Y and to not move him at all. The Local Controller had lost the picture and did not do a safety check before attempting to cross the Aircraft Y. He began giving wrong call-signs to the wrong aircraft and forgot who two aircraft were that were circling in the airspace and did not see they were headed for each other at the same altitude. After checking the tapes I verified that the Local Controller had made no transmissions to Aircraft X after cleared to land.This is a common occurrence with this Controller putting aircraft head to head and forgetting call-signs. The best recommendation is to have this Controller restudy proper scanning techniques and techniques to remember aircraft and their performance.




Synopsis: The Ground Controller observed the Local Controller clear an aircraft to cross a runway with another aircraft on landing roll.
Date: 201809
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
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: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ; Class G ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Student
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Pilot generally tracked the course of a highway northward towards ZZZ. Roughly 13 nm south of ZZZ pilot practiced steep turns and ground reference maneuvers over a busy interstate at generally 750-1;000 feet AGL. At this altitude the terrain warning system was continually activated. Pilot selected a motor vehicle traveling southbound on the interstate as a reference point to practice turns around a point initiating the maneuver at 600 feet AGL. Altitude was lost in the maneuver after several turns. The pilot noticed an altitude as low as 400 feet AGL; and brought the maneuver up to a higher altitude. Velocity throughout the maneuver was about 100 KIAS; well above stall speed. The most significant contributing factor to the low altitude condition was the pilot ignoring the terrain warning system; which he had done previously when conducting ground reference numbers; along with fixation at a point on the surface without periodic reorientation.The altitude the aircraft was transiently at would not have allowed an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface; considering that the highway had evening traffic. Altitude awareness and a prudent appreciation of risk would correct the situation if encountered again.




Synopsis: Piper Warrior II pilot reported practicing maneuvers below FAR-mandated altitudes and continuously ignoring the terrain warning system.