elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201308
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Company Policy
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: While cruising at FL380; I thought I heard our call sign and said to the Captain; 'I think that was us.' We didn't respond and; a few seconds later; ATC said; 'Company Flight Number; descend to FL320.' I replied to the clearance and started a VNAV descent. At 36;500 FT; ATC instructed us to climb to FL380. The Captain told ATC we would have to climb and that we were descending to FL320. ATC then asked if we wanted FL360. The Captain said yes. ATC gave us FL360 and also stated we may have taken someone else's call.




Synopsis: Air Carrier initiated a descent but was questioned by ATC regarding a possible same company mix-up; i.e. the clearance was issued to a company flight.
Date: 201903
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Super King Air 300
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Indicating and Warning - Landing Gear
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On approach into ZZZ and upon extending landing gear; had conflicting 'gear position' indications (2 green 'Down' lights for 'mains'; no green 'Down' indicator light for the nose gear). Advised Tower we would 'go missed.' Subsequent coordination with Departure for safe altitude and holding vectors while we worked the problem.We fly our King Air as a two pilot crew. Excellent performance on the part of my First Officer and credit due to Tower/Approach personnel who provided everything we needed.After running appropriate checklists; the abnormal nose gear position indication could not be resolved. Tower provided emergency services on the ground before we asked for same. Subsequent landing happily uneventful.




Synopsis: King Air Captain reported a nose gear indication malfunction that resulted in a successful landing.
Date: 201811
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Weather elements / visibility: Rain
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E SCT
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On SUTTR 2 Arrival into SNA at night in IMC; SoCal vectored Company traffic in very close behind us creating a spacing problem for SNA Approach Control. While under the LAX Class B airspace; we were complying with FAR speeds. Approach Control twice told us to 'keep your speed up.' It was impossible to go faster while still complying with the FARs. Weather was a factor. We were IMC in rain; needing to slow to flaps 40 speeds to land on a short/wet runway in heavy rain at night. Approach continued to keep us fast on downwind then vectored us to a 90 degree intercept to the final approach course at the final approach fix. Through great communication from the Pilot Monitoring who recognized me slipping into the Yellow; we were able to get a stabilized approach by 1;000 feet. However; I was well into the Yellow; at times dipping into the Red; simply to fix a minor spacing issue caused by ATC.Approach Control needs to be aware of the speed restrictions in their own airspace. Approach Control should have a basic understanding of the additive weather conditions within their airspace; and the effects that weather has on approach capability. I should have directed the Pilot Monitoring to tell Approach we would take vectors to a 7-8 mile final to give me more time to follow a normal approach and configuration sequence to stay in the Green.




Synopsis: Air carrier First Officer reported experiencing a near unstabilized approach while on the SUTTR 2 Arrival to SNA airport due to ATC instructions to resolve a spacing issue.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Sport Aircraft
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Aircraft component: Powerplant Fuel System
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Other / Unknown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Diverted; Flight Crew Landed As Precaution; Flight Crew Inflight Shutdown; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: VFR flight; in Flight Design CTSW: Route was around south end of Class C airspace at approximately 6;000 feet MSL. With 10 minutes left in the flight; engine lost power; 5;100 RPM to around 3;000 RPM. Transparent fuel tubes in cockpit revealed no fuel in left tank; but some in right. Applying carb heat; slow left turn putting right wing up in a bank had no benefit. Picked out a field. On short base leg; engine died completely. Landed; dead stick; in muddy wheat field. No damage to aircraft; anyone or anything on the ground. No injuries. Engine was restarted and ran fine on the ground minutes after landing. Dipstick showed ~5 gallons residual in right tank. None in left. Later; about 3.5 gallons was drained through the sump. Still later; after wing removal; some residual fuel was noted in the wing tanks.




Synopsis: LSA pilot experiences fuel starvation at 6;000 feet with fuel remaining in the right tank but the left tank empty. A successful off airport landing is executed without damage to anything or anyone.
Date: 202005
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation
Detector: Person Dispatch
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: About 2 hours into the flight we received a message from dispatch regarding some dangerous goods boarded and their location. Prior to push a 'NO PLANNED DANGEROUS GOODS FOR THIS FLIGHT' message was received.




Synopsis: Captain reported receiving a dispatch message during cruise of unreported dangerous goods onboard.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Hawker 900
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Ferry / Re-Positioning
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Airspeed Indicator
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Second reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Rejected Takeoff
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: This was the first flight of the tour for both pilots; and we picked up our airplane out of maintenance. Taxied for takeoff on a short ferry flight. I was the flying pilot. During the takeoff roll; shortly after the 80 knot call to which I responded 'my controls'; I heard the abort callout; so I initiated an abort; catching sight of an abnormal KIAS boxed annunciator on my PFD. I also noted our speed deceleration thru the mid-90s knot range. We were cleared off the runway; I asked my partner what we had exactly; and he described a sizable difference in our indicated speeds; nearly 30 knots. We stopped; cleaned up; talked to ground control; and taxied very slowly back into the ramp. No debris was found in the pitot tubes or static ports on the post flight.I think we handled this well for the most part. We discussed abort criteria after returning to the ramp; and whether a gross discrepancy in indicated airspeeds qualifies as an abort criteria at the speed at which it was detected. I was a little slow in initiating the abort- the call for it wasn't very loud- more a headset/communication issue; so it took a second to absorb the abort command. Perhaps it was a very normal response time when out on the road and considering our normal expectations/biases of a normal takeoff.


Second narrative: We were on our Takeoff roll and everything was normal. I was the non-flying Pilot monitoring the instruments from the right seat. I did my normal scan of all three airspeed indicators prior to announcing 80 knots. All three were in agreement and I proceeded to announce 80 knots. At that time we did the normal transfer of controls from right seat to left seat (PF). Shortly after that; I noticed the amber IAS mis-compare appear on my PFD. I crosschecked my airspeed indicator with the left side airspeed indicator and noticed that the left side was reading approximately 88 knots and the right side airspeed indicator was reading approximately 110 knots. At that time I announced Abort Abort Abort. The PIC executed the Abort per SOPs prior to V1. We then proceeded to taxi off of the runway without incident and parked at our departure FBO.


Synopsis: HS125-900XP flight crew reported a rejected takeoff due to a difference in the airspeed indicators.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; High Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance
Contributing factors: Airport; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: On approach into ZZZ during day VMC conditions the crew understood the approach clearance to be 'descend to 2000 cleared ILS'. While level at 2000; we received an EGPWS warning 'terrain; pull up.' I instructed the FO to confirm our altitude assignment with tower while I visually confirmed terrain and obstruction clearance. As I was beginning to initiate a climb; tower confirmed the altitude assignment should have been 2400; but cleared us for a visual approach with the runway in sight. I followed the ILS glide path to [the] runway and completed the approach and landing in visual conditions.




Synopsis: While maneuvering for an approach; the flight crew received a 'terrain; pull up' warning from the EGPWS on the aircraft. After making an altitude correction; a successful approach and landing was competed.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 1
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Rain Repellent System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I have written repeatedly about the Boeing 737 and the lack of hydrophobic coating on the windshield. Without it; you cannot see when in moderate and heavy rain. The wipers are completely ineffective. It's that simple. We need the hydrophobic coating. Past responses have indicated that a go-around is always an option; but it really isn't. We frequently operate into ZZZ with fuel for one approach and then off to the alternate due to weight restrictions. Because of that; there's tremendous pressure to get the aircraft into ZZZ on the first try. I am being adamant that the time has come for our airline; Boeing; and the FAA to start applying/mandating the use of the hydrophobic coating.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported flight deck windows need hydrophobic coating.
Date: 202112
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class B ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: B777 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; First Officer
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Jet Blast; Ground Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Airport

Narrative: We were departing ZZZ for ZZZ1. We were given a line up and wait on Runway XXL. When we lined up I transferred the controls to the FO who was on IOE. The winds were reported as 290 at 10 gust 17. I saw a 777 or equivalent wide body aircraft lined up on [Runway] XYR full length. We were given a takeoff clearance and the FO pushed the power up and started the take off roll. We were tracking center line and I was following my FO on the rudder pedals when all of a sudden the aircraft was pushed to the left and the FO immediately added almost full right rudder. Just a second after we felt the pushing force we were out of it and now we had a lot of right rudder heading away from the center line to the right. I believe the wide body had come up on his throttles and had to be near takeoff power and hit us with his jet wash. The FO was able to get our jet under control and back on the center line fairly quickly. The rest of the take off and climb out was uneventful.


Second narrative: During our takeoff roll on Runway XXL at ZZZ we encountered jet blast from a neighboring B777 lined up on Runway XYR (full length). The blast from the neighboring aircraft was strong enough to yaw our plane causing us to momentarily leave the centerline. As pilot flying (IOE pilot) it took a good amount of rudder to correct the yaw and bring the aircraft back to centerline. The jet blast encounter took place just above 100 knots and lasted for a second. We were able to correct to the centerline and were out of the jet blast before V1. The rest of the takeoff roll through rotation and climb out was normal and uneventful.


Synopsis: A320 flight crew reported encountering jet blast during takeoff roll which resulted in momentary loss of yaw control.
Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: C90.TRACON, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Cessna Citation Sovereign (C680)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class E C90
ATC / advisory: TRACON C90
Second aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: On approach into MDW Chicago Approach cleared us to descend to 2;500 ft and prompted us to call an [air carrier] plane in sight that was on the ILS/visual to runway 4R. We both identified the [air carrier] plane so we called them in sight and were subsequently cleared for the visual to runway 4R behind the [air carrier]. We leveled at 2;500 ft as assigned and had adequate spacing (about 5nm according to TCAS) on [the air carrier] in front of us. There was a crosswind component at 2;500 ft of about 10 knots and with the spacing everything seemed okay in regards to wake turbulence. Shortly before the outer marker; still at 2;500 ft; we entered the wake of the 737 ahead of us. It was very turbulent; our plane rolled abruptly to the right and the autopilot disconnected itself. The turbulence and the rolling motion continued so the Captain decided to climb to try to get out of the wake as quickly as possible; which worked. He climbed 300 ft - 400 ft and the ride smoothed out. I informed approach we had climbed to get out of the wake turbulence and he said okay and transferred us to Tower.In this situation; given our clearance; I'm not sure what we could have done differently to avoid the wake turbulence. I know wake separation was our responsibility once we called the 737 in sight; but I feel like approach set us up for failure by putting us below the flight path of the plane we were told to follow. We hit the wake before we could have applied any vertical wake separation techniques.




Synopsis: CE-680 First Officer reported encountering wake turbulence on approach to MDW in trail of a B737.
Date: 201310
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PIT.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E PIT
ATC / advisory: TRACON PIT
Aircraft component: FMS/FMC
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation - Altitude Undershoot; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were descending on JESEY RNAV Arrival into PIT and had been given CUTTA at 10;000 feet. We had programmed 28R into the FMC and the aircraft was descending in VNAV PATH and on profile. Winds aloft were loaded in Descent Forecast page. Approaching CUTTA; ATC changed our runway to 32. This requires re-loading the runway because 28R and 32 have different paths after KIRKK. Both of us pulled out the 32 approach plate and got it loaded in the FMC. Somewhere in this sequence of events; the aircraft ['s FMS mode] changed to SPEED and went high on profile. We were at 261 knots so I told the First Officer (Pilot Flying) to increase descent rate to make CUTTA at 10;000 feet. He pushed the nose over and made a good effort at recapturing PATH; but we ended up 800 feet high over CUTTA.[To prevent this in the future;] whenever the runway or the approach is changed; one pilot must continue monitoring the progress. Once one of the pilots has retrieved the necessary charts; he can resume monitoring. Also; not sure what caused the aircraft to come out of PATH but may have been higher than forecast winds during descent. This time of year winds are stronger and the descent page must be monitored.




Synopsis: Distracted while reprogramming their landing runway from 28 to 32 as they were descending into PIT on the JESEY RNAV STAR and cleared cross CUTTA at 10;000; the flight crew of a B737NG failed to note their autoflight mode had reverted from VNAV to speed and their rate of descent had decreased commensurately.  They crossed CUTTA 800 feet high.
Date: 201306
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: MEM.Tower, TN
Aircraft: Gulfstream V / G500 / G550
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: Tower MEM
Second aircraft: Bonanza 36
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Local
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The Gulfstream (Category D under RECAT wake turbulence separation) checked in for Runway 27 and was cleared to land. ARE (Arrival East) vectored the BE36 (Category F under RECAT wake turbulence separation) to final and switched him to me. When the BE36 checked in; I asked him to verify he had the preceding G5 in sight. He advised he did not. I coordinated with ARE to initiate a 360 with the BE36. The person who answered the line was apparently a trainee; the trainer approved the 360. The BE36 executed his 360 and landed without incident. RECAT separation for an F behind a D is five miles. This separation under RECAT is required to be established five miles from the FAF. The BE36 initial contact with Tower was already less than five miles from the final approach fix. At that point; the BE36 also had a faster ground speed than the G5. The Supervisor was aware of the 360 being issued and contacted the TRACON to have them investigate. Re-brief all controllers; Tower and TRACON on the requirement under RECAT that wake separation has be established 5 miles from the FAF.




Synopsis: MEM Controller described a questionable RECAT wake separation event; noting another briefing to facility personnel should take place to clear up current uncertainty.