elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201302
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
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: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Had an aircraft on approach to SAF; the Tower called the guy down. Went to remove strips and must have put in the wrong CID. Ended up removing strips on Air Carrier X. I've gotten used to rapidly removing strips for SAF arrivals and didn't bother to use the logic check when confirming the remove strips for the SAF guy. My scan picked up the wrong number on the scope. Would have deviated the next sector most likely had the CIC at the time not come over to ask who that guy was. I put a track on him immediately; [and] then Sector 17 asked if it was so and so... I asked and got all his relevant information back in to the computer and handed him off normally. There were a few things going on with the sector at the time; nothing terribly complex or workload intensive; but steady. Double check the CID/call signs properly in the computer before removing strips. Use the strip for referencing the CID to remove; not the scope. Have SAF Tower be the one to remove strips on an aircraft in the FDIO when they call with a down time. Have data blocks in Class A airspace on a discreet code flash/blink... not like CA; still suppressible; but enough to bring attention to the RADAR controller. My action was so quick and thoughtless that I never realized that I RS'd the wrong aircraft until it was brought to my attention.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described an unsafe event after hastily removing strip on an IFR SAF arrival only to discover that he had removed the wrong aircraft ID; nearly experiencing a sector airspace deviation.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PIT.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on descent; we received a TCAS TA for traffic that was about 5 miles ahead of us; approximately 1;000' below us; as we were in a descent from 5;000' to 4;000'. I was performing an idle descent in SPD Mode at 250 KIAS. I immediately selected VS Mode and reduced the descent rate to -1;000 FPM to attempt to avoid a TCAS RA. Within two or three seconds; Pittsburgh Approach advised us of an aircraft; 11 o'clock; maneuvering at 3;500'; 3 NM; VFR. We immediately spotted him; Eastbound; at the prescribed altitude. I advised my First Officer that this is just setting us up for a TCAS RA as he was going to cross directly below us; and told him to prepare for it as I shallowed the descent to 300 FPM.Nearly instantly; we received a TCAS RA to 'Monitor Vertical Speed'. I disengaged the autopilot to reduce our descent rate to zero while instructing my First Officer to advise Pittsburgh Approach that we were complying with an RA. While doing that; we received a second TCAS RA to 'Adjust Vertical Speed' of approximately 100-300 FPM climb. I climbed to 4;100 while slowing down and we received a 'Clear of Conflict' notice. I returned back to 4;000' and then TRACON cleared us for the visual approach to Runway 28C.ATC cannot allow a passenger jet to overfly a small; single-engine aircraft with only 500' of separation. Sadly; every RA I've ever had (three) have been because of this exact situation; so I've become accustomed to how to deal with them.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 Captain reported responding to an RA while on final approach to 28C at PIT due to opposite direction VFR traffic also under ATC control.
Date: 201205
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: OAK.Airport, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody Transport
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: Tower OAK
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
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 Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On radar vectors to Oakland Airport (OAK) working with Local Controller; on right dog leg to airport; we were asked if we had airport in sight. We said yes. Captain flying; First Officer was looking at Oakland Airport; I looked outside and saw what I thought was Oakland airport; but was in fact Hayward Airport; Which is just east of the localizer for Runway 29. I made a right turn adjustment to line up with runway. PAPI showed me high; I continued to descend. First Officer stated I was too low. The PAPI showed me high. We were configured for landing gear and flaps set for landing. The sight picture did not look right. I looked down at my flight instruments and saw that I was right of course and low. About this time; I and the Local Controller saw that I was lined up for the wrong airport. I leveled off and made a correction to the left and landed on Runway 29 at Oakland. The reason for this happening was that I visually identified the wrong airport. Why did this happen? First; I identified wrong airport visually. Secondly; I did not brief that Hayward Airport is just east of Runway 29 LOC. Lastly; [I] should have been more alert to flight instruments.




Synopsis: OAK ATC noticed an Air Carrier on a visual approach to OAK Runway 29 lined up and descending to the HWD Runway 28R PAPI and after a verbal alert the Captain focused on the OAK PAPI.
Date: 202109
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Aircraft component: Fire Protection System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Situational Awareness; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was the PIC flying; about 4;000 feet we got an overhead light; it was intermittent. Shortly at about 10;000 feet a caution followed by fire warning lights and bells. We told ATC that we're returning back to ZZZ. All engine indicates were normal. The airport fire and rescue said it was safe enough to taxi to the gate.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported an engine fire indication after takeoff and returned to the departure airport. After an AFR inspection the aircraft returned to the gate.
Date: 202103
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Physiological - Other; Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Started APU shortly after arrival to cockpit and noticed a dusting of what we thought was debris coming from the ducts.  I asked the support crew to get in touch with maintenance to take a look.  Me and the crew continued with our duties and at some point we noticed an odor.  We felt it must be the COVID spray so we were not alarmed.  Spoke with maintenance about the dusting but language was a barrier.  Later alerted by the crew that smoke in the supernumerary was getting worse.  In the cockpit we had not noticed.  Maintenance came into the cockpit and told us to leave and shut down.  We vacated immediately.




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported during pre-flight duties the crew noticed dusting in the air and believed it to be spray for COVID. Captain was told by Maintenance to shut down and vacate the aircraft.
Date: 201705
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: L30.TRACON, NV
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings; Procedure
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: Our radar feed was fusion and every aircraft on the final went to ISR [Increased Separation Required]; I turned an aircraft base to stay 5 miles behind; the trailing aircraft got the lead in sight. I forgot to say maintain visual separation.We were advised that the L30 radar would be worked on for maintenance but it would not affect the operations. We lost the feed completely and it made all the data blocks 'ISR' so we had to give an extra 2 miles to every aircraft. We don't have that much airspace here for descending traffic because of terrain. It made it difficult.




Synopsis: L30 TRACON Controller reported a loss of separation due to not having an aircraft maintain visual separation while using FUSION Radar.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: LGA.Airport, NY
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B JFK
ATC / advisory: TRACON N90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Flight Crew FLC complied w / Automation / Advisory; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Flying on the KORRY 3 arrival at 5000 ft; we were advised that there was a helicopter that was circling over the Statue of Liberty and to stay at 5000 ft which we did. We saw the target on the TCAS and it was showing 3-4 miles at 2 o'clock when the target disappeared from the TCAS. We did not have the helicopter in visual contact. Approximately 3-5 seconds later; the target again appeared on TCAS showing 400 ft below at which time we received an RA-Monitor Vertical Speed. My FO disconnected the AP and started a climb to 5400 ft to give us a safe clearance as we did not have the traffic in sight and wanted to put ALT between him and us. I advised ATC that we were climbing for an RA. After passing the helicopter as verified by TCAS since we never had it in sight; we resumed normal operations and descended to 5000 ft.This was the second RA-Monitor Vertical Speed that we received on this day; on the KORRY 3 arrival and within 10 miles of each other; on the same aircraft. Both events had the target drop from the TCAS system and then reappear at -400 below causing us to climb. Both events had an ATC advisory of the traffic at 500 ft below our assigned ALT. ATC should give 1000 ft clearances instead of 500 ft preventing the TCAS system from being right on the edge of the RA parameters.




Synopsis: CRJ-200 First Officer on the KORRY3 Arrival was advised by ATC of a helicopter orbiting the Statue of Liberty at 4;500 feet and to maintain 5;000 feet. The TCAS shows -400 feet for the target and commanded 'monitor vertical speed.' The crew elected to climb.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PHL.Airport, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B PHL
ATC / advisory: Tower PHL
Second aircraft: A330
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Wake turbulence from an A330 landing on [Runway] 27R caused us to float leaving less available runway for us to land.  Floated past the touchdown zone.  Wake turbulence from A330 landing on intersecting runway.  Executed go/around.  Balked landing.  Extra spacing is needed when conducting operations with intersecting runways when a Heavy aircraft is involved.


Second narrative: We encountered wake turbulence from a heavy A330 that landed on Runway 27R right before [our] landing [on] Runway 35 in PHL; causing us to float too long with little runway to stop.  Captain call a go-around and [that] was executed.


Synopsis: CRJ-700 flight crew reported executing a go-around from their approach to Runway 35 at PHL after encountering wake turbulence from an A330 landing on Runway 27R.
Date: 201505
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: TYR.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: LA-4-200 Buccaneer
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Sea
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: During the weekend; I had given several friends a short ride in my seaplane. Each flight departed and landed on the surface of a lake. On board were myself; plus one adult; and two minors; for a total of four persons. We had no cargo; and 27 gallons of fuel in the main tank. The auxiliary tanks were empty. The incident occurred during an aborted takeoff attempt. Wind was from the south at 8 MPH and slightly gusty. We taxied to the north end of the lake to a cove for smooth water. I started my takeoff run to the southeast along the shore line. I was unable to get airborne before we left the cove and we started to encounter rough water; so I began to slow down and turned toward the east to head to another cove. When I turned slightly left again to the northeast; we encountered some boat wake rollers and skipped several times. At this point either the nose gear door or the right wing float caught the water and we experienced what I believe was a water loop. There we no injuries; but one wing float was bent and the other had come off. A boat approached and I had them take my three passengers to shore and send a friend to tow me back. Once the airplane was beached I also noted minor damage to lower wing skins; rudder; left flap; left aileron; and one front landing gear door.I was rested and in a good mental state to pilot this aircraft. I was current; and I feel I was well trained when I got my seaplane rating in this aircraft. I now question my judgment in giving this ride with passengers; given the existing wind and water conditions. I also believe I should have slowed down more before turning to find a second location for takeoff. Optimally I could have aborted the entire flight after the first failed takeoff attempt.




Synopsis: Seaplane aborted takeoff attempt due to rough water conditions. When attempting to turn during subsequent taxi aircraft experienced a 'water loop' resulting in aircraft damage.
Date: 201807
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SYR.Airport, NY
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Regional Jet 700 ER/LR (CRJ700)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C SYR
ATC / advisory: TRACON SYR
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: While on approach into SYR; practicing visual approach on Initial Operator Experience we came close to a tower that was not briefed in the approach briefing.Cause: Visual approach briefing did not include towers found on other approach charts. We took evasive action and turned off the autopilot to avoid the tower. Suggestions: Brief a plate or approach even though visual conditions exist.




Synopsis: CRJ First Officer reported that towers on the approach path into SYR was not briefed in the approach briefing.
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GSO.TRACON, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class C GSO; Class D INT
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSO
Second aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach; Departure
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown; 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
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X was a departure off of ZZZ going to INT IFR.  He advised INT in sight at 4100 about 18 miles northwest of INT; I coordinated with INT to clear the aircraft from his current position.  INT approved that so I cleared the aircraft for the visual approach to RWY 33 and shipped him to INT tower.  INT then launch Aircraft Y from runway 33 IFR on a 330 heading climbing to 4000.  I was busy at the time and I'm not sure if he checked in right away.When I radar identified him I turned him to a 020 heading climbing to 12000 and when I saw that was not going to work and separation would be lost I continued to turn to 090 but the aircraft didn't acknowledge.  I think the aircraft at that point were about 2 miles give or take and 600 feet.  I told the supervisor about the incident and he called INT tower and the CPC stated that they had all aircraft in sight and were applying visual separation.  They had issued traffic on departure.  I wish INT tower would have informed me that they were applying visual separation when they called the departure rolling.




Synopsis: GSO Controller reports of a loss of separation with an arrival and a departure aircraft.