elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202202
Location: SCT.TRACON, CA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class B LAX
ATC / advisory: TRACON SCT
Second aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Distraction
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Our aircraft experienced sudden; violent turbulence due to possible wake turbulence from another aircraft. Flight Attendants B;C; and D were tossed around in the aft galley for about 10 seconds. Shortly after the plane was back in control; a call light rang; and a passenger in the OWWE (over wing window exit row) notified our 'D' Flight Attendant that his heart rate was racing. The D flight Attendant asked for medical personnel on the aircraft; and a passenger came to assist. After the passenger was helped; the ill passenger changed seats and the medical passenger sat in the OWWE; however; she was not briefed before landing.




Synopsis: Air carrier Flight Attendant reported a passenger became concerned after a wake turbulence encounter on descent into LAX.
Date: 201902
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: Helicopter
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Ambulance
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class G ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Rotorcraft
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Time Pressure; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Pre-flight
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: A standby call came in to the base. [Another] pilot and I discussed whether he would take the call or I would take the call. We decided that I would take the call. I acknowledged the call and gave my information and proceeded to build my crew and RA (Risk Analysis). I thought I submitted my RA. Like always; I wrote my Card number and RA number on my knee board. I then went and got ready for the flight. I was getting ready and waiting to see whether the call was going to be a go flight. The medical crew and I thought we heard our RA acknowledged. We were advised that this was now a go flight. The medical crew and I gathered our stuff and headed to the aircraft. We did our walk around and proceeded with startup. Prior to lifting we went through our pre-lift checklist. I was asked if the RA was acknowledged so as I always do. I checked the cell phone to see if the RA acknowledged text was there and it was. Therefore we preceded to take off and head to the hospital. Once I landed Company called and said they didn't have an RA. I immediately looked at the phone and it was the [other] pilot's RA that was acknowledged and not mine. So I logged in only to notice that I had saved my RA as a draft and not submitted it; so I submitted the RA and preceded with the flight once the patient was loaded.




Synopsis: Air taxi helicopter pilot reported flying a leg without a legal Risk Analysis confirmation.
Date: 201908
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZBW.ARTCC, NH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZBW
ATC / advisory: Center ZBW
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; 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 Diverted; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: On the HAARP3 RNAV Arrival into LGA; we were given a hold over RKA. We were told to hold as published on the depicted radial and were given an EFC time approximately 45 minutes from the present time. The Captain and I had previously discussed how the holding leg length of 40 miles that was depicted on the chart seemed odd; but unfortunately didn't query the Controller about it. Captain built the hold into the FMC and I confirmed it before Captain executed it. We entered the hold and about 3/4 of the way out on the outbound leg we were asked by the Controller where we were going. I replied that we were flying a 40 mile leg length because that was what we had depicted on our charts. We had a lengthy discussion with the Controller as to where we had found this information and what we used for charts. We were instructed to reduce the leg length to 20 miles and subsequently; by a different Controller; to 10 miles. We complied with both leg lengths. Another aircraft on the frequency overheard our discussion with Boston Center and noted that they had 40 mile legs for that hold depicted on their charts as well. After about an hour of holding; we decided to proceed to our alternate and were vectored out of the hold.


Second narrative: Flight to LGA was a delayed flight. On the HAARP3 STAR for LGA we were instructed by Boston Center to hold as published over RKA. The chart depicts 40NM legs. We programmed the FMC for the hold with 40NM legs as depicted on the Jeppesen chart. After entering the hold we began to get busy with our planning and communications with Dispatch; FA's and passengers. At some point on the outbound leg ATC asked; 'where are you going?' We reported we were holding with 40 mile legs as depicted on the chart which we also confirmed with the high altitude enroute chart. ATC claimed that their charts showed something different and asked us to do 10 mile legs. We complied with their request.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an erroneous Jeppesen chart depiction of the holding fix at RKA VOR on the HAARP3 arrival into LGA. It depicts 40NM instead of the correct distance of 10NM.
Date: 202001
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: PUW.Airport, WA
Flight conditions: Marginal
Weather elements / visibility: Fog; Snow; 0.5
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZSE
ATC / advisory: CTAF PUW
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Contributing factors: Airport; Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: When coming in on an instrument approach in low visibility; I forgot to announce on advisory frequency that I was landing. There was a snowplow at the other end of the runway at the time; which I didn't realize until we landed and came to a stop. We were not in danger of hitting the snowplow; but the situation seemed dangerous to me. This situation happened because this is an unusual airport that has snowy weather; commercial service; and no tower; which means CTAF is used to coordinate between machinery like snowplows and aircraft. This situation was caused by my failure to make radio calls once I was switched to advisory frequency by ATC.




Synopsis: Corporate pilot landing at a non-towered airport reported they forgot to communicate their arrival on CTAF and noticed a snowplow on the runway after landing.
Date: 201410
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZAU.ARTCC, IL
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; Low Wing; 1 Eng; Retractable Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZAU
ATC / advisory: Center ZAU
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: While on IFR flight plan; contact with Chicago Center was lost. This occurred in the same area where radio coverage is known to be poor according to a radio communication I had with ATC on a previous flight. ATC informed me during that previous flight that it is a 'known dead spot'. Upon realizing that some time had gone by since I last received radio contact from Chicago Center during my flight today; I presumed that I had gotten out of range to receive radio transmissions from them. I looked up the closest frequency on my low IFR chart and contacted Kansas City Center on 126.225. I was informed by the Kansas City Center controller that I should call Chicago Center regarding a possible pilot deviation upon arriving at my destination. I believe that Chicago Center tried to contact me while I was in the area of poor radio coverage at 6000 ft MSL; but I was not able to hear them. I should have realized it sooner; but approximately 30 minutes had gone by before I realized radio contact had been lost. In the future; I will monitor frequency 121.5 when practical during cruise flight and check in on the assigned frequency more quickly should I have reason to believe I may be getting out of range for radio coverage or if I have not had radio contact with ATC for more than 15 minutes. It might also be helpful upon initial contact for ATC to routinely inform/remind pilots flying through that area that radio coverage might be lost and which frequency should be used to re-establish radio contact with ATC in such event.




Synopsis: Pilot reports of a loss of communication with ATC in a known dead spot for radio communication.
Date: 201707
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: CLT.Airport, NC
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B CLT
ATC / advisory: Tower CLT
Second aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach
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: Ambiguous

Narrative: While executing a visual approach into runway 23 at CLT we experienced wake turbulence from a 757 ahead of us. We were coupled to the ILS 23 approach at the time with both glideslope and localizer centered. Leading up to the approach for spacing; ATC had us slow down. We complied with the speeds and it seemed that there was adequate separation. Once recovered from the wake turbulence; we did a go-around. I asked ATC for a heading and altitude for time to complete some checklists for EICAS messages that resulted from the wake turbulence. Once we completed each checklist we were put back into sequence with no more issues.Follow proper wake turbulence avoidance procedures especially when VFR and visual approaches are in use. Understand that when a visual approach is in use there is a chance the plane ahead of you is not on glide path.




Synopsis: ERJ-175 First Officer reported executing a go-around after encountering wake turbulence on approach to CLT in trail of a B757.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: PNS.Airport, FL
Flight conditions: Mixed
Weather elements / visibility: scattered clouds; 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: TRACON MGM
Aircraft component: Electrical Power
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Human-Machine Interface; Situational Awareness; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was 2.5 hrs in on a 3.5 hr flight; on an IFR flight plan at 8;000 feet in a C-172M /G at the time of the incident; talking to Montgomery Approach and was south of PRN on my way to PIGON. Suddenly I lost all electrical equipment on board the Cessna 172M. The entire flight had been in scattered conditions; going in and out of the clouds every few minutes. I kept flying the airplane; while trying to get my Electronic Flight Bag (an iPAD) running so I could use it for navigation and while I tried to use my handheld radio. Tried to reach Montgomery Approach using the handheld but had no luck transmitting; I was only receiving communications. With no electrical systems there was no means of squawking 7600; even though I tried to do so as I was running the checklist for loss of electrical systems during the recycling of the master switch. I elected to descend VFR to 3;000 feet and did so without entering IMC conditions. Once at 3;000 feet I contacted Flight Service Station using my phone connected via bluetooth with my Bose Headset. Once I got in touch with them I told them of my situation and requested to close my IFR flight plan. Additionally; I requested to be transferred over to Pensacola TRACON; in order to notify them and request to enter and land at my planned destination (PNS). The FSS Controller was very helpful and notified me that Pensacola TRACON would call me on my cell phone in a few minutes. Once in touch with Pensacola TRACON; we exchange some information (altitude and location); and they were able to pick up my primary on radar. They cleared me in to their Class C; and once I was about 20 miles north of PNS I tried using my handheld again and contacted Tower with success. They cleared me to land on Runway 35; and I notified them it was going to be a no flap landing and that it was going to be a longer ground roll.




Synopsis: When the C-172 pilot on an IFR flight plan in scattered cloud conditions; lost essentially all electrical he was able to contact an FSS by cell phone; cancelled his flight plan and arranged a cell contact with the tower upon arrival at his destination.
Date: 201706
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: MEM.Airport, TN
Flight conditions: IMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Widebody; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class B MEM
ATC / advisory: TRACON M03
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Track / Heading All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were given incorrect vectors after established on ILS for 18C at 2000 ft. We were twice asked to change direction of the jet to 150 degrees which is the wrong way to sidestep to 18R when established on 18C. I first took the vector as for someone else (18L was closed) but after repeating the new vector clearance a second time I said 150 isn't going to get me to 18R. He immediately vectored us to 210 and we complied. As PM; I went to my EFB; called up 18R and dialed it in. As the runways are close parallels apparently not quick enough as we flew through and we corrected back. Though I didn't see precisely; I don't think we were that far right of 18R centerline. When I looked the runway was in sight and we were correcting back to the ILS centerline. No conflict was seen or presented by all concerned. The controller apologized profusely about his error before switching us to tower.I don't have a positive suggestion. At a critical mid-point in the arrival for an instrument final approach segment; the direction we were given was just flat incorrect. It is worth mentioning that reason we were changed to the right runway was an aircraft had blown some tires landing on our original runway. I believe we were second to next for the fouled runway. Still; a vector for left 30 degrees for a runway to our right is unacceptable.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported instructed by ATC to turn the wrong direction to intercept the Runway 18R localizer; twice. When queried; the Controller issued the correct heading and apologized for the error.
Date: 201907
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B737 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Horizontal Stabilizer Trim
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: Just after takeoff the FO noticed the aircraft was not trimming with the electric trim switches. I tried my side which was not working either and verified that the electric trim cutout switches were closed and all circuit breakers were in. Manual trim was working fine. We ran the checklist and contacted Dispatch and Maintenance via AIRINC who had no other suggestions for us and we agreed that we would continue to ZZZ. The only hiccup and the main reason for the report is that when checking the non normal landing distance for a flaps 15 landing with no electric trim I could not find it for the -700. I did see one for the -800. We extrapolated from the existing performance numbers and asked dispatch to verify a landing distance which they did. We continued for an uneventful landing; but you might want to include that performance line for future flights.Also; it just happened that the trim was in the proper position for takeoff so we never checked the electric trim before takeoff. We may want to add a quick check to that system during the preflight.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that stabilizer electric trim switches were not working; requiring manual trim to be used for landing.
Date: 201903
Aircraft: Airbus 318/319/320/321 Undifferentiated
Operator: Air Carrier
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Other / Unknown
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Hazardous Material Violation; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Ground Personnel
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: There seems to be some miscommunication between Operations and Cargo. There have been some guidance changes in reference to the carrying of dry ice in the front cargo compartment of the A320 [Series]. On [date] Cargo put out the following bulletin that states dry ice can no longer to loaded in the front pit of a A320 [Series aircraft]. It would have been nice for the largest division at [company] to pass this info on the front line. Does this new requirement require all checked luggage that is within limits to be loaded in the rear? Advisory: Dry Ice shipments can no longer travel in the forward pit of the Airbus A320 [Series]. This change will lead to a reduction in the amount of dry ice that can be carried on the A320 [Series].  [Company manuals] are being updated with the new limitations to ensure dry ice shipments are not improperly manifested to the Airbus. Why: during recent discussions with Airbus; it was discovered that [company] lacked a ventilation modification that would allow for the safe carriage of dry ice in the forward pit of the A320 [Series]. [Company] is required to follow all manuals and technical guidance from Airbus to ensure a safe and compliant operation of the Airbus fleet.




Synopsis: Ground Agent reported communication breakdown between Operations and Cargo [Load Planner] regarding the carrying of dry ice in the forward cargo pit on the air carriers A320 series aircraft.
Date: 201811
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: APA.Airport, CO
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E D01
ATC / advisory: TRACON D01
Second aircraft: Cirrus Aircraft Undifferentiated
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were flying in the Chatfeld Practice box in the Southwest Practice area at 8;000 feet MSL performing steep turns. We performed our clearing turn and made a radio call on the practice area frequency of 122.75. Upon completion of the first 180 degrees of the steep turn; we found ourselves head-on with a Cirrus. The Cirrus made no radio call and did not seem to have us in sight. We made an immediate left and turn and descent to avoid a midair collision. The Cirrus passed over us by approximately 150-200 feet. The Cirrus proceeded to fly through the rest of our practice areas making no radio calls. I made a call over the practice area alerting other pilots of the aircraft; including location; direction of flight; and altitude. The practice area frequency is listed on the Denver sectional for both areas. There is no alert area established for this very busy training location.




Synopsis: C172 instructor pilot reported an NMAC with a Cirrus in the Southwest Practice area near APA.