elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: CLT.TRACON, NC
Light: Night
Aircraft: Medium Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
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: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Approach
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Speed All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Executed Go Around / Missed Approach
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While working the east final I was running ILS approaches. There was a bit of a headwind on final and I was assigning a speed of 170 Knots to the final approach fix. This resulted in an observed groundspeed of 140 knots. I observed this for several aircraft prior to working Aircraft X. After clearing Aircraft X for the ILS I assigned 170 knots to the final approach fix which the pilot read back. As Aircraft X crossed the fix I noticed a speed of 110 knots on the radar. I advised the trailing aircraft; Aircraft Y; to reduce to final approach speed in order to maintain separation with Aircraft X. Aircraft Y did not respond as they had already switched to the tower frequency. Subsequently; the rest of the aircraft that session all indicated 140 knots over the final approach fix; as had all aircraft prior to Aircraft X; that were assigned 170 knots. The Tower was unable to provide runway separation with Aircraft X and Aircraft Y and Aircraft Y was instructed to execute a missed approach. Aircraft Y was then assigned RWY 18R and flew out to a 20 mile final before they were able to return. The non-compliance with speeds to the final approach fix has become a recurring problem amongst the carrier fleet. It creates unnecessary vectoring and go-arounds at this airport thus reducing safety. If the carrier fleet is unable to comply with assigned speeds; ATC should be notified in order to provide adequate spacing between those aircraft and other aircraft in close proximity. If more than the FAAH 7110.65 required separation is required between the carrier fleet and the preceding arrival; ATC should also be notified.




Synopsis: Controller observed an aircraft not complying with its assigned speed on final approach. The following aircraft had to be sent around for resequencing. The reporter claimed this is a recurring problem with one particular airline.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Dash 8-300
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Training / Qualification; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Weight And Balance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the First Officer on this flight and this was my leg. We were delayed in our departure. The ramp crew; after loading the bags; provided a [load manifest]. Based on the number of passengers and number and weight of bags; the Captain determined that there was an excess of bags. He asked the ramper to bring gate-checked bags into the cabin. A short time later; the same ramper returned; and attempted to put the new numbers on the old [load manifest]. The Captain requested that the ramper fill out a new [load manifest]; which he did. Both the Captain and I looked at the new [load manifest]; and noted that six heavy bags had been reduced to three. The Captain questioned the ramper as to where the other three heavy bags had gone. The ramper said they had taken them off. Once we arrived; the Captain went outside to check the load. He related to me that the counts were off; all the heavy bags remained on board; and the bags exceeded the bag line in the cargo compartment.




Synopsis: DHC8-300 First Officer describes an improper load discovered by the Captain who asks the ramper to bring the gate checked bags into the cabin. The six heavy bags have been reduced to three and the ramper states the other three have been removed. Upon arrival the Captain checks the baggage compartment and finds the bags in question were not removed and are over the bag line.
Date: 202105
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: PHL.TRACON, PA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B PHL
Second aircraft: UAV: Unpiloted Aerial Vehicle
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Distraction
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Unauthorized Flight Operations (UAS)
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While being vectored for the visual approach to runway XX at PHL the captain noticed a white drone pass along the left side of the aircraft. Captain observed drone pass the left side of aircraft. Unknown person operating drone near aircraft. Notified ATC. Suggestions: More closely monitor the position of drones in relation to aircraft.


Second narrative: On Approach to XX in PHL a drone flew past the aircraft. It was at 5;000 feet; straight and level and heading westbound. I saw it pass off the left side of the aircraft. It didn't cause us to change course or altitude. Suggestions:Be aware of drones by airports. Second trip in a row now.


Synopsis: An air carrier flight crew on visual approach to a Class B airport observed a drone pass along the aircraft at 5;000 feet. Crew notified ATC.
Date: 202111
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: PA-24 Comanche
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Handoff / Assist; Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction
Second reporter function: Enroute
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert; Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors
Primary problem: Weather

Narrative: I don't know if anything like weather contributed to the aircraft altitude change. I was working Sector X as the D-side and the R-side said it looks like that guy is descending. MSAW was flashing; I waited an update or two and checked to see if the altimeters had a big change. Before I got to check out the altimeters; I had another call and when I looked back; the aircraft was still descending and below the MIA of 095 MSL. I called Sector Y and told them the aircraft looks like they are descending and released control of the aircraft.The Controller on Sector Y called me back to let me know the aircraft did not know why they could not hold altitude; wanted to reverse course; and that they were in VMC. The Sector Y Controller also let me know that he had [provided priority handling] for the aircraft. Sector Y called me back to let me know the pilot's intentions were to circle around ZZZ1 until the problem was discovered. Before the aircraft got back on my frequency or near ZZZ1; he said that it is good and wanted to continue to ZZZ2. So; Sector Y OK'd the data block back and the aircraft went on to ZZZ2. The pilot did say it might have been a downdraft as heading back westbound he noticed it happen again but was better prepared for it.


Second narrative: I observed Aircraft X descending below 10;000 and verified the altitude. The pilot advised that he was climbing back to 10;000 and stated he didn't know why he was losing altitude. I issued a low altitude alert and to maintain 10;000. Pilot stated he was making a 180; I then advised him of the location of ZZZ1. The pilot wanted to continue eastbound and troubleshoot the aircraft in the vicinity of ZZZ1. I provided priority handling and coordinated with Sector Z. The pilot then stated that he was ready to continue back westbound for ZZZ2.


Synopsis: Center controllers reported an aircraft having trouble maintaining altitude and descending below the MIA.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Automation Aircraft Other Automation; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain/PF called for flaps 30; I verified speed and didn't put flaps down. Both Captain/PF and I confirmed flaps 30 green light and landing checklist complete. Aural warning. Switched flap warning inhibit. Deemed stable; in VFR conditions and in a safe position to land and did so. I can only guess that I must have been distracted prior to putting the flaps in the final 30 position. Always verify flap position with indicator.


Second narrative: Basically CA called for flaps 30. FO missed the call or mis-selected flaps. Landed Flaps 25


Synopsis: B737-800 flight crew reported landing with flaps 25 when First Officer neglected to select flaps 30.
Date: 201710
Location: ZMP.ARTCC, MN
Aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class E ZMP
ATC / advisory: Center ZMP
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued Advisory / Alert
Contributing factors: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings
Primary problem: ATC Equipment / Nav Facility / Buildings

Narrative: During descent into FSD; we were switched to MSP center on freq 128.0. The loud side-tone/squelch/squeal was almost deafening and made comms with MSP center difficult at best; dangerous at worst. MSP center stated; 'known problem with that freq; write it up.' So I am. Crosses the line into dangerous in my opinion.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported on descent into FSD the ZMP frequency 128.0 had a loud side-tone that was almost deafening and made communication with the Center difficult.
Date: 202009
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Flight Attendant (On Duty)
Reporter qualification: Flight Attendant Current
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness; Time Pressure; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Attendant
When detected: Aircraft In Service At Gate
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I am not in this department but I would like to know what is a 'Typical' time frame to clean an aircraft with one person doing the job. We came in from ZZZ1 with XX people and 1 jump seat. The personnel came on after everyone except the X throughs. I was busy helping a customer and about 5 minutes later the 'Cleaner' came off. I told ops which in turned called for a Supervisor. The Supervisor came and I asked how long does it take to clean seats and trays. He said there is no time frame. I told him this employee wasn't on the plane 5 minutes. He asked if I wanted another cleaning crew to come. I said no; I just want to know he did ALL trays. I have through customers on board and they watch us. I was just making sure we are KEEPING OUR PROMISE to the customers. I thought they are supposed to do ALL tables? The cleaners don't know where people sat.




Synopsis: Flight Attendant reported concerns with cleaners sanitizing the aircraft too quickly.
Date: 201603
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: IAH.Airport, TX
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm; Turbulence
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Airspace: Class B IAH
ATC / advisory: TRACON I90
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Check Pilot; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation - Altitude Crossing Restriction Not Met; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Due to windshear in the area; departures were delayed approximately 15 minutes. Rerouting was also done for weather avoidance. Our new departure included a speed restriction of 230 knots until reaching a specified fix (the departure and specifics will be identified in an update when that information is available from my flight bag). Initial altitude assigned was 4000 feet. This altitude complied with 2 fixes on the route that required aircraft to be at/below 4000 feet of Fix 1 and at/below 5000 feet at Fix 2. My MFD was selected at 40 miles to determine best routing for weather avoidance. After switching to Houston Departure we were given a climb to 16000 feet. 'Aircraft X climb and maintain One-Six Thousand; Climb via the SID.' I looked at the First Officer and noted: 'This is a bad climb that will get folks in trouble. People are going to get this wrong unintentionally.' Well; I GOT IT WRONG after knowing and briefing it. Upon crossing an initial fix; I looked at my MFD and thought I could go to 5000 feet which I did. Unfortunately I was too early and for a few minutes I was 1000 feet higher than I should have been. Seeing no traffic conflicts in the area and since I was nearing the 5000 foot fix; I elected to stay. Another aircraft was behind us and given the same instructions. That aircraft did not stop at 5000 feet and continued climbing until the controller queried the flight. The pilots responded that the instructions were very confusing. In my opinion; the instructions are not confusing; it is just a poor procedure that pilots are not used to. I suspect controllers may be placing bets to see who busts the altitudes.As noted above; I had some distractions pointing out the threats; weather avoidance and then getting a bad climb clearance. My recommendation is to modify the SID and have the controllers avoid issuing the climb until after the aircraft passes the first altitude restricted fix; preferring the climb after the second altitude restricted fix. If I can make this mistake; others will also.




Synopsis: CRJ900 Captain reported not complying with crossing restrictions published on a SID.
Date: 201911
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: While approaching Traffic Pattern we stated over CTAF (Common Traffic Advisory Frequency) that we would overfly the airport and join the left downwind. While joining the left downwind; we heard our call sign over the radio from another aircraft apparently in the pattern asking why we cut them off.... I had no visual of the other aircraft nor did I hear on the radio another aircraft was in the pattern. I asked the other aircraft to state his position and he stated we just flew over them. As we were at pattern altitude; if we flew over them I suspect they may have been lower than TPA (Traffic Pattern Altitude). I asked their intentions and they stated they would follow us in for landing. We landed without incident and they followed us in without apparent incident as well. We were monitoring and communicating our intentions from 20 miles out. I do not recall hearing this other aircrafts call sign or that they were in the pattern. There were multiple aircraft up from multiple airports communicating on this shared CTAF freq. It is possible I missed the call; the other aircraft was stepped on or he failed to make a proper call. Regardless; this was a near miss in my opinion and I used this as a training opportunity with my student to reinforce proper radio calls as well as what can potentially happen in the pattern at an uncontrolled airport.




Synopsis: C172 flight instructor reported a near miss with another aircraft in the airport traffic pattern.
Date: 201301
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: LAS.Airport, NV
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Night
Aircraft: B767-300 and 300 ER
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B LAS
ATC / advisory: TRACON L30
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: Visual approach to Runway 25L at LAS. VMC conditions clam winds; 10+ SM visibility; clear skies. Was being RV by LAS Approach on downwind to a visual approach to 25L. Was turning base to final when the GPWS alert came on. I was approximately 4;600 feet in a slight descent when the GPWS went off only once. I stopped the descent and started a Climb to 4;700 feet. The terrain and Tower was in sight and on the right side of A/C. I called out to the Non Flying Pilot that I had the terrain and Tower in sight and that it was definitely below and to the right of us. The GPWS alert stopped once I leveled off. The GPWS only sounded/alerted once. After I was sure that we were clear of any more alerts I continued my visual approach to 25L with a stable approach and landing. I believe with the aircraft in a turn/bank angle that the radio altimeter was picking up the side of the hill which is located due south of RELIN (FAF).  Aircraft was being hand flown. Speed 170 and Flaps 20.  Speed bug was set to 160 and aircraft was decelerating to 160 KTS and Approach mode was armed. Aircraft was about 200-300 VSI down in a descent and 4;500 feet was set in the altitude window.  Verify that just because ATC is giving you decent clearances/step downs while being radar vectored that the altitudes that they are descending you too is at or above the MVA/ MSA. If unsure; then level off and question ATC. I am very familiar with LAS and its surrounding terrain and I knew/saw all the terrain while being radar vectored but will request to fly the RNAV arrival to avoid unnecessary GPWS alerts. It is very common to get RV from SKEBR to Runway 25L while arriving at LAS in the evening. They step you down while also giving heading instructions until you except the visual approach.




Synopsis: B767 Captain experiences a terrain warning during a visual approach to Runway 25L from the south in night VMC. A slight climb was initiated as the radio tower that caused the alert was in sight below and to the right.
Date: 202011
Local time of day: 0601-1200
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: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Human-Machine Interface; Training / Qualification; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Result: Flight Crew Became Reoriented; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: New FO updating arrival waypoints mistakenly deleted route in legs 1 at XA:40Z.  CAand FO immediately reinstated route in legs 2.  CA sent position reports to ATC at XA:50Z and XB:17 Z.  CA counseled FO.FO familiar with Manufacturer X aircraft type and not Manufacturer Y aircraft type. Unable to fly after training due to virus.[I suggest] more training.




Synopsis: Captain reported the First Officer mistakenly deleted the route in legs 1.