elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201910
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B787-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant In Charge
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I was the purser and was in the forward cabin. Approximately 30 minutes before landing; the Captain advised we would be entering an area of some turbulence. The seatbelt sign went on and I announced for passengers to take their seats and fasten seat belts. The Flight Attendant's in the main cabin were finishing up their service and galley Flight Attendants were stowing carts. Suddenly; we had severe turbulence and then a lightning strike and loud bang. I ran for my seat and made another PA. The Flight Attendant's in the back galley were thrown around and the carts flew up also. The serve turbulence lasted several minutes.  After we smoothed out; the Flight Attendant's got up and continued to put away galley equipment. There were no serious injuries; but the main cabin Flight Attendant's did get tossed up in the air and back. No passengers complained of any injury. The main cabin Flight Attendants could give a better description of the chaos in the back galley.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported a lightning strike and severe turbulence.
Date: 202102
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: RNO.Airport, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Airspace: Class C RNO
ATC / advisory: Tower RNO
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: In preparing for the flight; I could not determine the engine-out minimum cleanup altitude departing Runway 16R for an engine failure that occurs after D3.0 IRNO. The complex special EFP reads 'EO - Established on H325 and above 5;500 feet MSL' - a condition that will not be reached if climbing via IRNO LOC SOUTH COURSE per the EFP. After talking to the Chief Pilot on Call; who then made inquiries to other internal resources; it was determined that 5;500 feet MSL is the minimum cleanup altitude. In fact; at the minimum all-engine climb gradient of 440 ft./NM any departing aircraft will be above 5;500 feet MSL (1;085 ft. AAE) before D3.0 IRNO. However; with an all-engine minimum cleanup altitude of 7;400 feet MSL an engine failure can occur with the flaps extended. The EFP does not provide a minimum cleanup altitude for that case.Our departure was uneventful; and our light-weight [aircraft] reached 7;400 ft. MSL as we crossed D3.0 IRNO. Winds were out of the south at 45 kts. On a side note; the [Runway] 16L/R EFP for IRNO OTS (Out of Service) appears flawed. If IRNO and IAGY are both OTS the procedure specifies runway heading to 8;500 feet MSL. At max crosswind for a V2 of 131 KIAS of 70 kts.; drift angle will be 32 degrees. With a ground track of 196 (degrees); the terrain at 7;862 feet is almost precisely on course from the FMG R-205 decision point. The crosswind limits appear to be for the early turn to H325; but may need to be more restrictive for a 164 heading climb to 8;500 feet MSL.




Synopsis: Captain reported inconsistencies in RNO departure procedures.
Date: 201303
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: F82.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class G F82
ATC / advisory: CTAF F82
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: I was inbound for landing and entered left downwind for Runway 35. There was another airplane on short final for 35. The other airplane landed and called clear of 35 on the CTAF as I was turning base. I turned final and lined up with what I thought was the runway. The approach was looking really good. Then I noticed that the other airplane was directly in front of me. That's when I realized that I was not aligned with Runway 35 -- instead; I was aligned with the taxiway adjacent to the runway. As I initiated a go-around; the other pilot came on frequency and confirmed my mistake. There were two major factors that caused me to line up with the taxiway instead of the runway. First; the taxiway was used a drag strip for race cars in the past. As a result of the drag races; it has very dark parallel markings that resemble the touchdown zone of a large commercial airport. Second; it was dusk. In the low light; the dark skid marks stood out as the most prominent visual cue; a visual cue that I am used to seeing on runways at larger airports. After the go-around I made a full trip around the traffic pattern and landed uneventfully on Runway 35. Improved runway markings and/or lighting might make the runway stand out more prominently than the dark skid marks on the taxiway during low light conditions.




Synopsis: A pilot executed a go around at 300 FT when he realized he was lined up to land on the F82 taxiway adjacent to Runway 35 because during his dusk approach he did not distinguish the difference until he saw a taxiing aircraft.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZOA.ARTCC, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Falcon 2000
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Reporter organization: Fractional
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Distraction; Confusion; Troubleshooting
Second reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew

Narrative: Originally given OAKES STAR via DUGLE eventually changed to MADWIN STAR which may have deleted DUGLE intersection from waypoint list. DUGLE added again but in error spelled DOGLE. Auto Pilot (AP) was in LNAV and began track to DOGLE. Pilot Flying (PF) was reviewing new STAR on Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) and felt aircraft turn; at this point ATC asked us to fly 250 Heading I went to HDG selected 250 and reconfirmed that heading while in the turn. ATC advised us to discuss with him. I called after arrival and explained to someone who was aware of the incident but not the original controller. I was told no separation issues; thanks no problem. I did not advise company or file a report because of that statement.Verification of waypoint even if the second time. All waypoints verified on INAV display.


Second narrative: While on a flight from JAC to OAK our arrival was changed from the OAKES2 Arrival via DUGLE intersection to the MADWIN 5 arrival. DUGAL intersection was added again and spelled in error as DOGLE. The autopilot and L-NAV were engaged and the aircraft turned toward DOGLE. At this point ATC advised us to turn to a heading of 250 which we did in heading and corrected our course.Upon our arrival in Oakland we called Oakland center to discuss our situation and were told there was no loss of separation and no problem. Therefore I thought the matter resolved.


Synopsis: Falcon 2000 flight crew reported confusion over miss spelling an intersection which caused the aircraft to go off the correct heading.
Date: 201601
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BNA.TRACON, TN
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class C BNA
ATC / advisory: TRACON BNA
Second aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Airspace Structure; Human Factors
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Aircraft X was turned on course and climbed. Approaching 5000 feet the pilot asked if his assigned altitude was 5000 feet or 15000 feet.  I said 15000 feet and he responded that traffic was descending overhead. I then noticed the target. It was a target with altitude only and no beacon code and it was Aircraft Y. I told Aircraft X about the target and said I am not talking to that aircraft. Aircraft Y keyed up and said it was him. I clicked on target and noticed it was on the wrong code; got correct code from the Flight Data Printer which is not at the position. I gave Aircraft Y the correct code and still could not track up the aircraft. I had to get the supervisor to track up the data block from the coordinator position. The session was quite busy and complex. Previously during same session I had asked for a coordinator and denied VFR flight following to numerous aircraft. Aircraft X noticing the other aircraft visually and or on TCAS and questioning the altitude was the only thing that prevented an error. I'm not sure if I accidentally dropped the Aircraft Y data tag or if the tag was never handed off from ARTCC in the first place.  I do not recall talking to Aircraft X previously; but I was very busy and cannot recall for sure. Final and departure west were both open at the time.




Synopsis: An aircraft was in a Controller's sector with only a 'limited' data block displayed. The Controller did not notice the target or realize the aircraft was on their frequency and flying through their airspace.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: DEN.Airport, CO
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class A ZDV
ATC / advisory: Center ZDV
Second aircraft: MD-11
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Dispatcher
Reporter qualification: Dispatch Dispatcher
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: On climb out of DEN between FL360-370 aircraft encountered severe wake turbulence from an MD11 at FL390. They experienced an abrupt roll estimated greater than 30 degrees. The autopilot was disengaged; and the Captain commanded full right deflection; in addition to some downward nose deflection to gain airspeed to get the aircraft to respond. No crew or passengers were injured; though both pilots and flight attendants reported being shaken. Pilots were done for the day; but at least one FA elected to finish her day at [their destination] from being so shaken.




Synopsis: Air carrier Dispatcher reported a company B737 climbing out of DEN encountered severe wake turbulence at FL360-370 from an MD11 at FL390.
Date: 202007
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: C02.Airport, WI
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
Airspace: Class G ZAU
ATC / advisory: CTAF C02; UNICOM C02
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control; Ground Excursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: I flew into C02 with a normal VFR approach and landing. Landing was great and I pulled off onto the taxiway. Stopped and completed post-landing checklist. Taxied down taxiway to parking area. Taxiway was in poor condition with potholes and branches overhanging taxi way. While taxiing down taxiway; plane suddenly and sharply veered right into dirt mound along side of taxiway. I immediately pulled throttle out and mixture out to cut engine. Taxiway should be better maintained or the taxiway should be closed using a NOTAM and big yellow crosses.




Synopsis: Pilot reported loss of directional control and taxiway excursion at C02 airport and cited poor condition of taxiway as contributing.
Date: 202009
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I received a call from the Purser that they had an e-cig (e-cigarette) overheat/explode in seat pocket. He said a non-rev Captain who was seated in area removed the passengers from row and sprayed the seat pocket with a halon fire extinguisher. The Purser said the e-cig was put in a thermal containment bag. The situation was contained but there was some residual smoke in the cabin. We did memory items for Smoke; Fire and Fumes checklist and gave Pilot Flying duties to First Officer. I went to QRC that directed us to QRH. We ran the Smoke; Fire and Fumes checklist and then the Smoke and Fumes removal checklist. I called back to Purser and was told that the smoke had cleared. I then talked to our non-rev Captain. He said he heard a loud pop and saw a flash. He immediately cleared the passengers and sprayed the seat pocket area with a Halon that a flight attendant handed him. He said the whole event lasted less then 3 minutes. I asked him in his opinion did we need to divert or continue. He said the situation was contained and he felt it was safe to continue. I also asked the Purser the same question. The purser said it was safe to continue. They had moved the passengers to empty seats. I contacted Dispatch and explained what had happened. I told the Dispatcher I was continuing to ZZZ unless he or the company wanted us to divert. He checked and said to continue to ZZZ. We continued to ZZZ without any further issues.


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


Synopsis: B-737 flight crew reported a small fire due to an overheated e-cigarette in cabin which was quickly extinguished by a deadheading Captain. Flight subsequently completed an uneventful trip to destination.
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Air Carrier X was on a visual approach to Runway 17 and had been switched to local traffic. Air Carrier Y who had been previously cleared to destination with a hold for release clearance called for release. Air Carrier Y was told of company traffic on approach and to report company in sight for release. When Air Carrier X was approximately 6 miles from the airport; Air Carrier Y reported them in sight and was released using visual separation phraseology. Loss of RADAR separation occurred when Air Carrier Y departed Runway 17 and was climbing via the DP and Air Carrier X continued the visual approach. 7110.65 7-2-1 b.1 requires controllers to be in direct communication with one of the aircraft and have the ability to communicate with the other aircraft involved. Aircraft communicate with one another at uncontrolled fields thousands of times daily to safely facilitate landings and take-offs. They should not be encumbered and delayed by ATC at those airports where we provide ATC services for what is a safe and routine operation.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller experienced a separation error when using visual separation between an arrival and departure from a non-towered airport.
Date: 201702
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PA-28R Cherokee Arrow All Series
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Fuel Drain
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: CFI candidate was previously flying with a different instructor in the Arrow (PA-28R-200) at our flight school for the commercial pilot certificate. Plane was topped off with fuel just prior to our flight; and fuel was drained. We did taxi and runup normally (although previous instructor had CFI candidate use a different method than the checklist to start the engine; by using full throttle to prime the engine and shutting off fuel pump before starting). After runup; CFI candidate performed pre-takeoff checklist. During pre-takeoff checklist; CFI candidate changed fuel from right tank to left tank. I told her she wasn't 'wrong' to do so (so long as fuel was properly drained during preflight); but normally we don't change tanks then because if there is a problem with the fuel or contaminants or water in the other tank; we don't want to find that out during our takeoff climb. We got to the end of the runway and gave full throttle; powered up normally; and then as we were rolling lost a significant amount of power (on the order of losing 50%-75% of our power). Exited the runway and taxied back to base. Mechanic did thorough and extended runup and said everything is OK; probably just some water in the fuel (on several previous flights; I have found small amounts (2-3 tablespoons?) of rust-colored water from the left tank; probably came from the fuel truck and is difficult to remove from the airplane. From what I can tell; this plane's left tank is the only plane in our fleet that has this rust-colored water coming from it; albeit small amounts and only rarely). Chief of flight operations took the plane for a test flight after the mechanic's extended runup and declared everything OK. Question - if there is some water from the fuel truck in the left tank; how can we remove it if repeated draining don't remove it? Corrective actions - don't switch tanks after runup; and make sure to drain at least a full fuel cup at each fuel drain during preflight.




Synopsis: Piper PA-28 flight instructor reported an aborted takeoff due to loss of power.
Date: 201507
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZID.ARTCC, IN
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZID
ATC / advisory: Center ZID
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness; Workload
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Roughly 30nm from ZIEBR; ATC asked us if we were direct BKW at the time. I responded that we were never given direct BKW and were on our filed course. ATC responded that his paperwork showed our course to be SHIPR DCT BKW. I told him our paperwork showed SDF FEDRA2 SHIPR DCT ZIEBR J526 BKW J42 GVE PAATS2 PHL. I told him I would have to check with the company about the discrepancy. He then cleared us direct to BKW. This ATC controller then told me that this has apparently happened a lot with our company. We continued to KPHL uneventfully. This event occurred because the current PDC clearance system enables easy confusion between filed route and cleared route. In a highly saturated busy cockpit environment; (such as the one we were in during our initial setup and departure) it is simply too easy to confuse the two. In this case; the new amended clearance route was -FEDRA2 SHIPR BKW -. This amended clearance was broken up between the bottom of page 1 and the top of page 2 of our PDC. If you review the actual PDC after our amended clearance it then continues with; KSDF FEDRA2 SHIPR ZIEBR* J526 BKW J42 GVE ...KPHL. *CLIMB VIA SID CLIMB VIA SID* DEPARTURE CONTROL 132.07 DEPARTURE CONTROL. The repeat of our incomplete filed flight plan along with the use of *'s only add to the confusion. Add all of this together with a fast moving; highly saturated cockpit; the opportunity for confusion is elevated. PDC clearances need to more clearly identify the actual cleared route. In this case the change in route in the PDC was just 1 line really. However it was spilt between page 1 and page 2 which made it all too easy to inadvertently skip over. When one calls for a clearance via normal comms; one is not read back the filed route. They are simply read back the cleared route. I feel this would be the most obvious fix. Personally; I will be more cautions when reviewing PDCs and will call over regular comms whenever I see a reroute.




Synopsis: CRJ-900 Captain reported a track deviation due to what he termed a confusing PDC presentation.