elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201304
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence; Rain; 7
Aircraft: Citation V/Ultra/Encore (C560)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B BWI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft X was filed IFR from ZZZ to MTN via the RAVNN3 arrival. Approaching the DC metro area we were told to expect the Localizer 15 approach into MTN. Avionics set up and the approach brief was conducted for the approach. Subsequently; we were re-advised that Runway 33 was now in use and to expect the LDA33 Approach. A second approach was set up and a briefing conducted as per procedure. Following a short vector for weather avoidance; we were vectored to intercept the LDA33. Though the frequencies were confirmed both visually and audibly for both pilot positions; and the inbound course confirmed and set; there was no stable indication of course guidance and zero vertical guidance. Near or about the time the non flying pilot was to call ATC to confirm our position. We now were shown to be right or North of the inbound course on our moving map. ATC called and confirmed this. We were then issued a vector of 290 to re-intercept the inbound course. Without any stability in the CDI indication; and rather than attempt to troubleshoot this approach any further; we asked for a vector to the RNAV 33 Approach. This was approved and we were vectored to the RNAV 33 Approach which was set up; briefed and conducted without further incident. The most likely error was that we incorrectly set up for the approach. We reviewed the approach procedure as well as our set up and found no errors. Still baffled as to the reason for our difficulty the Captain called MTN Tower to discuss the incident. The Controller on duty readily admitted that a shift change had just occurred and that the approach in use had not been changed from 15 to 33. The approaches use the same frequency. It's clear now that we were seeing an unstable back course indication with reverse sensing from a still in use localizer 15 while executing the LDA33 approach. This possibility had not occurred to the flight crew.




Synopsis: Corporate aircraft inbound to MTN experienced difficulty capturing the LOC; later discovering ATC had failed to properly align the ILS equipment to the correct runway during a shift change.
Date: 201208
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHS.Airport, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground CHS
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Airport
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: There is no sign which identifies Taxiway Bravo at CHS when exiting the ramp from Gate XX onto Taxiway Bravo; nor is there a sign which identifies the crossing taxiway which intersects Taxiway Bravo.Although it is obvious per the commercially provided airport page where Taxiway Bravo should be; there is no signs which identify Taxiways Bravo or the crossing Taxiway Charlie when exiting the ramp area from Gate XX onto Bravo.




Synopsis: An air carrier pilot reported inadequate identification signs for Taxiways Bravo and Charlie at CHS.
Date: 201506
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: A380
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Cruising at FL370 in smooth air; seatbelt sign off.  Encountered a moderate double bump that was quite violent that felt like wake. Immediately turned on seatbelt sign and called the FAs to see if anyone was hurt and fortunately everyone was ok.  Called ATC and asked if any aircraft were near us.  They told us we crossed 1;000 feet below a Super A380 that was 20 miles away to our right.  We told ATC we went through their wake. ATC thought the distance was sufficient.  The quartering tailwind of about 20 [KTS] kept the wake in our path and caused us to encounter the turbulence.  Not suspecting and having the seatbelt sign off could have easily caused injuries or aircraft upset at high altitude. Perhaps ATC should give more spacing during light winds and tailwinds to the lower crossing aircraft below a Super or at a minimum; issue an advisory.




Synopsis: B737-800 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence at FL370 from an A380 that was 20 miles away and 1;000 feet above them.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.TRACON, US
Aircraft: Small Aircraft
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Second aircraft: Small Aircraft
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
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: Environment - Non Weather Related; Staffing; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: This event occurred during special staffing circumstances; in which we are working on skeleton crews due to COVID-19; and I was working with one other person; and half of the airspace for our TRACON. Also; there have been a high amount of practice approaches during this time. Aircraft X was at 030 was cleared for an approach into ZZZ that has a one minute procedure turn at ZZZZZ [Intersection]; and I had another aircraft I was vectoring into ZZZ1 at 040; which I waited until he was established to descend him; because the approaches come close to each other but don't overlap. I have never seen this type aircraft go as far out as Aircraft X did; especially doing less than 100 kts; and so I immediately got off the line I was coordinating on and asked him if he was commencing the turn inbound; I then called traffic to him and he said traffic in sight and I asked that he maintain visual separation. I did not realize at the time that I lost separation; but upon review; the Quality Control staff found that I lost separation before I obtained visual separation.In the future; I would ask the pilot to report the turn inbound and wait to descend the other aircraft or I would wait until I visually observe this on the screen. I have worked many of these approaches in this type of scenario and I was anticipating the turn to be much smaller; but I realize I should protect for a larger turn; in case the pilot does something I am not anticipating. In general; these weeks have been hard because of the high amount of VFR traffic and the flight school operating out of ZZZ2; along with no D-side or Coordinators and more airspace; longer time on position with many days off in between; and it just makes it a little harder.




Synopsis: TRACON Controller reported a loss of separation due to an aircraft taking too long to turn inbound on the approach. Controller made reference to COVID-19 related issues contributing to the event.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PBI.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Citation X (C750)
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class C PBI
ATC / advisory: TRACON PBI
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: After departure PBI; SLIDZ1 Runway 10L; part 91 trip; aircraft not pressurizing. We leveled off at 7000 feet to work the problem and decided to return as cabin would not pressurize. While holding at SLIDZ1; west of PBI to burn fuel for landing weight; we already had slats/flaps 5; speed brakes deployed and gear down to create max fuel burn. Amber CAS (Crew Alerting System) message 'HYD VOLUME A LOW' appeared. We had 6-11% volume in the A system. We ran the checklist; notified ATC we are now [requesting priority handling]; notified Dispatch; briefed each other; briefed passengers and landed Runway using emergency braking. Came to complete stop on Runway. CFR (Crash fire rescue equipment) and [FBO] tug met us; placed chalks and tugged us off runway without incident.




Synopsis: C750 Captain reported pressurization failure causing a return to departure airport.
Date: 201810
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Icing; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: M-20 R Ovation
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I encountered icing conditions in my Mooney; which was not FIKI (Flight Into Known Icing) equipped. I had obtained a weather briefing via flightplan.com and knew of an icing airmet. I believed that I would be able to stay below the cloud layer until clear of clouds and then climb in VMC to an altitude where the temperatures were cold enough that icing would not occur. The clouds were lower and more pervasive than I realized from my weather briefing and I found myself picking up trace ice at around 10;000 MSL. I informed ATC and with their assistance determined that a climb to 16;000 MSL would likely get me out of icing conditions. I immediately began a climb and was soon in temperatures well below freezing and out of the icing conditions.I think my flight into icing was caused by my misinterpreting the satellite weather depiction as being the only places where there were clouds or clouds with moisture significant enough to cause icing. That is clearly not the case.I fault myself for misinterpreting the weather briefing and for not making a no-go decision solely on the basis of the icing airmet. That would have been the prudent thing to do.I credit myself for immediately informing ATC and seeking their assistance to plan an escape from the icing conditions.




Synopsis: M20R pilot reported entering icing conditions without anti-deicing equipment.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CYYZ.Airport, ON
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A319
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower CYYZ
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Approach told us to expect the visual approach to Runway 06L. The First Officer (Pilot Flying) loaded the ILS 06L in the FMS and we confirmed the approach. We got vectors to a visual approach for 06L and used the ILS 06L as a backup. Approach told us to contact the Tower at the FAF; but I was late switching over to Tower due to completing the Landing Checklist. When I checked in with Tower; I said that we were on final for Runway 06L (I don't remember getting a response). When we were on short final; a B777 taxied onto Runway 06L and it was clear that we had a traffic conflict with the B777. When the Tower contacted us; I stated that we were on final for Runway 06R. Tower then cleared us to land on Runway 06R; but there was no way to make it over to that runway from such a low altitude; so I called 'go-around.' The event occurred because of a traffic conflict with the departing B777 on Runway 06L. I don't think it is a good procedure for Approach Control to tell pilots to contact the Tower at a specific geographical point. How do they know that we won't have a higher-priority task at that point in the future? The truth is that they don't. In this instance; there was time available for me to call the Tower prior to the FAF; but at the FAF; I was busy with a higher-priority task (aviate; navigate; communicate). If I had been given an instruction to switch to Tower immediately; I would have worked it into my work flow at the appropriate time.




Synopsis: A319 First Officer reported executing a go-around due to a conflict with an aircraft of the runway.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: Turbulence
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Workload; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On the ground in ZZZ we had a planned cruise altitude of FL 240; on the ZZZZZ [arrival] into ZZZ1. When we received our Weight and Balance calculation it was incomplete due to our cruise altitude of 240; and a crossing restriction on the [arrival] at ZZZZZ1 at or above FL 290. I; [the] FO (First Officer) went back into the flight plan to correct ZZZZZ1 to match our cruise altitude of 240 so we could complete the weight and balance/performance. Once we reached our cruise altitude of 240; we encountered turbulence; so we requested a higher altitude of FL 300. I FO forgot about what I changed in the box when I was on the ground in ZZZ. We received a clearance to descend via the [arrival]. We as a Crew had not yet briefed or reviewed the arrival. What didn't help was encountering a pocket of moderate turbulence; and before I knew it; the PF was trying to capture 240. We realized our mistake and asked ZZZ1 Center for lower. ZZZ1 Center never gave us a lower altitude; except he argued with me about my turbulence report.




Synopsis: B737 First Officer reported an altitude deviation due to a waypoint altitude setting in the FMS that was never changed.
Date: 201305
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: PCT.TRACON, VA
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON PCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Workload; Time Pressure; Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While flying the Gibbz One arrival to IAD; somewhere near JIMVE we requested a deviation north of course for weather on the arrival route. ATC cleared us to deviate north and to proceed to IGGGY when possible. We were again unable to proceed to IGGGY due to weather. So; then we were cleared to MOSLE when able and to maintain 11;000 FT. At some point while we were deviating north of the arrival we were cleared to 'descend as though we were on the arrival.' At the time we were not on the arrival course; but 5 to 10 miles north for weather. We questioned the clearance but were given a frequency change to Potomac Approach and told to advise them that we were to 'descend as though we were on the arrival.' Upon contacting Approach Control we advised them of our 'descent clearance'; but that our last hard cleared altitude was 11;000 FT and that we would not be descending lower until cleared by them. The Controller cleared us to a lower altitude and we continued to IAD. These RNAV arrivals are difficult enough; requiring way too much of the pilot's attention as it is without trying to fly and comply with nonexistent fixed points in space while trying to safely deviate around weather.




Synopsis: When a B757 flight crew was cleared to 'descend as if you were 'descending via' the GIBBZ RNAV STAR to IAD' while; in actuality; deviating well north of the published track; then were switched over to another Controller without receiving a requested clarification as to what was expected of them the Captain refused to descend below a previously cleared hard altitude and felt compelled to submit this report.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: TJSJ.Airport, FO
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
ATC / advisory: Tower TJSJ
Second aircraft: Twin Otter DHC-6
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft RA; Person Air Traffic Control; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We were on approach to Runway 08. Around 1;500 ft; Tower warned us of traffic at 2. FO (First Officer) was flying and saw traffic and said going around. About that same time; I picked up the traffic too. We started climbing and then the TCAS gave us a TA/RA and we max-power climbed; I saw the twin otter turning and climbing into us. Why he was running around that part of the airspace I am curious about; anyway we out rated him. The alert cleared and we cleaned up and went around.Then on the second approach we went around again due to a VFR aircraft that was maneuvered in front of us. TJSJ Tower was unsafe!




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a near midair collision while on final approach; and going around on the second approach; both due to lack of traffic separation from ATC.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: EDDF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: B787 Dreamliner Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
ATC / advisory: TRACON EDDF
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While en route from RASVO to ONOKO we were given a descent and told to maintain 2000 FPM.  ATC called [another aircraft] to turn right 10 degrees; shortly thereafter ATC told [that aircraft] to turn further 20 degrees right.  We went through wake turbulence from another jet and someone else stated 'That was close' over the radio.  We never received a TCAS alert.  We then asked ATC if they were calling [us] and the Controller said yes.  We complied with the directions to turn right 20 degrees.  The main issue was the Controller stated [the wrong flight number] twice and led to the confusion.




Synopsis: B787 F/O reported a wake turbulence encounter and apparent airborne conflict resulted when the ATC Controller used the wrong flight number twice on arrival into EDDF.