elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Global Express (BD700)
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Final Approach
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Landed As Precaution
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Flight diverted due to smoke in cockpit. In the course of completing checklist; crew communication and ATC communication we were being vectored by approach to runway XY at ZZZ. When on approximately 2 mile final to runway XY I asked pilot not flying to confirm cleared to land. Tower confirmed cleared to land. Taxiing to parking tower asked to give them a call.  Pilot in command called and was advised that call to confirm landing clearance was first contact with them. Stated that no problem with the late call and verified we were on vector to final.  No emergency was declared as the source of smoke was determined by crew to be right side windshield heat and isolated by turning windshield heat off.  Later maintenance inspection revealed wire connection block to be shorted and arcing causing smoke.  In the future declaring an emergency could reduce the crew communication with ATC work load and contact responsibilities.




Synopsis: A GLEX crew; dealing with a divert for smoke in the cockpit; fail to check in with ATC until approximately 2 miles on final.
Date: 201210
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: SBY.Airport, MD
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: Rain; 6
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Small Aircraft; High Wing; 1 Eng; Fixed Gear
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower SBY
Aircraft component: Tablet
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: [I] recently purchased a popular tablet computer and moving map/geo-referenced software. After receiving taxi clearance; computer locked up making geo-referenced taxiing impossible. I resorted to an approach plate diagram and proceeded to taxi. The confusion and distraction and timing of the event caused me to fail to read back my clearance and to violate a hold-short line; basic procedures I never fail to perform. No incident occurred; fortunately. I should have been prepared for a computer failure or asked for a progressive taxi. My point: these new whiz-bang gadgets are wonderful adjuncts; but result in over reliance and sloppy planning.




Synopsis: Pilot of a small aircraft attributed a runway incursion to failure of the geo-referenced; tablet display he was using for taxi.
Date: 201506
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ORD.Airport, IL
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 170/175 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Tower ORD
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Fuel Issue; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Reroute on taxi out due to weather and ATC changed route. Flight deck was divided on taxi out; route was confirmed but not discussed against 50 nm rule. Shortly after takeoff received 'check fuel at destination' message. Noticed fuel at destination to be less than 2;900 enroute. Altered route and flight plan in FMS and Fuel on Board (FOB) at destination was less than reserve enroute. Minimum Fuel or contingencies were not discussed further than needing short cuts.Landed with all three fuel indicators in yellow caution range. Verify 50 nm rule.




Synopsis: An ERJ-175 Captain reported arriving at their destination with a low fuel condition after a weather related re-route.
Date: 202101
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Vehicle Driver
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Airport; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: The parking area we have at ZZZ is not sufficient for the aircraft we have parked here. On a daily basis we are using a taxiway to position aircraft for storage and temporarily parking for live flights. This has now spilled over into unsafe parking of aircraft nightly in areas that are not officially parking spots for aircraft such as the XX Pad service road; parking aircraft behind other aircraft on the XY Pad and double stacking aircraft int the Hangar alley ways. This is being said by our management team that this needs to be done for parking because we don't have any more space here at the airport. We have been constantly fighting this space issue for years with no resolution in sight. These spaces we are currently using do not have stop marks; they do not have clearance zones and where they are parked the areas are used frequently by many vehicles from Maintenance to [Company] trucks. This leaves us open to having an accident. The planning of these mega storing of aircraft here needed to be better thought out. This is just extremely poor planning by not only local management but also the local operation center and the corporate operation and real estate divisions who believe that we can handle the amount of aircraft here without having an accident.




Synopsis: Ground employee reported misgivings over crowded parking aprons and lack of clearance to move multiple aircraft during maintenance.
Date: 201409
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: MSY.Airport, LA
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B757-200
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E ZHU
ATC / advisory: TRACON MSY
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Trainee
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Training / Qualification; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Aircraft X; was set up in a left downwind to Runway 10 level at FL100; heading 270 degrees. Aircraft Y; had just departed Runway 10 and turned north bound climbing to FL090; heading 010 degrees. Aircraft X had passed the flight path of Aircraft Y's assigned heading; traffic was called to Aircraft Y; who called Aircraft X in sight. Aircraft X had already passed through the flight path of Aircraft Y by a couple of miles; so I did not tell the pilot of Aircraft Y to maintain visual separation; as their flight paths had already crossed. I told the pilot of Aircraft Y caution wake turbulence; and climbed him to FL150. The event happened because of residual wake turbulence behind Aircraft X and because I didn't either let Aircraft Y level and wait until the aircraft crossed the wake turbulence zone; or because I didn't tell the pilot of Aircraft Y to maintain visual separation from Aircraft X; which had already crossed Aircraft Y's flight path.Perhaps a Cedar briefing item as just a reminder about residual wake turbulence trails of Heavy aircraft.




Synopsis: MSY Controller describes a situation where he climbed an A319 aircraft through the wake of a B757 and didn't use the residual wake turbulence rules for proper separation.
Date: 201407
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: Thunderstorm
Aircraft: B767 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked; Taxi
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Fatigue; Time Pressure
Anomaly: No Specific Anomaly Occurred All Types
Detector: Person Flight Crew
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Yesterday I flew a transatlantic flight from London to the US. We had a scheduled pickup at the hotel at XA:40. Due to traffic on the highway we arrived at the plane at XC:40. As a crew of only two--the flight being unaugmented due to the flight time scheduled at exactly 8 hours--we were quite rushed. This is the first Atlantic flight I have ever flown without a relief crewmember.After pushing on time; with a new First Officer; we had a short taxi to the runway. Shortly after departure we lost our Radar; and were lucky to receive excellent vectors from London Control around building cells.  The flight preceded and we were able to retrieve our Radar after Maintenance Control had us reset the CB.  We had to deviate around a few cells on our way to the U.S. but arrived in good time; with XXL as the best choice of runways.  When we blocked in the flight time was 8:12. I understand the company had adhered to the regulations in scheduling the flight at 8 hours; but I think this is not a realistic time. We were both exhausted. This flight was followed by flight returning to London a day later. We had arrived [after midnight local] and by the time we had reached our hotel rooms the time was almost 2.5 hours later.  This lack of sleep and disruption to our routine left us with a sleep deficit despite both of us going to bed at mid-evening the night before.I think the scheduling of this flight with no relief provided by a third crewmember is a safety hazard.  I hope the company will review this policy; err on the side of good judgment; and reinstate our relief.




Synopsis: A B767 Captain addressed fatigue issues when assigned to fly an unaugmented flight from London to the U.S.  The assignment was legal as the flight was scheduled for exactly eight hours although the actual block to block time exceeded eight hours.  Contributing factors were diurnal issues and rest periods not in concert with flight crew circadian rhythms.
Date: 202110
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: None
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Landing
Airspace: Class D ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Second aircraft: Skyhawk 172/Cutlass 172
Aircraft component: VHF
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Instructor; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Commercial; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Conflict NMAC; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While in reporting aircraft [and] was downwind for right traffic [for] RWY XX approaching XY numbers; [I saw] an aircraft (C172) that was cleared to land decided to perform a go-around. In an attempt to avoid the upwind traffic (C152-slower); the go around aircraft made an immediate right crosswind turn. The right crosswind turn placed the go around aircraft and reporting aircraft on a collision course. While this was happening; ATC queried the go-around aircraft reasons for go-around and potential need for assistance. The CFI onboard the go around aircraft responded lengthily (I was doing soft field landing and had to go around etc...) while making the right crosswind turn. The reporting aircraft's instructor took over the controls from the student and performed a wide left 360 degree turn to avoid the go around aircraft. The go around aircraft's decision to over communicate prevented ATC from announcing a potential conflict. This incident highlights the importance of see and avoid and exercising situational awareness in the traffic pattern.




Synopsis: C172 pilot reported an NMAC after an aircraft turned the wrong way during a go-around and verbalized a lengthy radio call; preventing ATC from warning of traffic conflict.
Date: 201901
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZAB.ARTCC, NM
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZAB
ATC / advisory: Center ZAB
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Illness / Injury
Detector: Person Flight Attendant; Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was the Captain of the flight; operating as PF (pilot flying); when the FA (Flight Attendant) contacted the flight deck to inform us we had a sick child onboard. The child was complaining of headaches and vomiting and a physician was onboard and attending to the child. After transferring PF duties to the FO (First Officer); I initiated a phone patch with the aircraft; the Operations Center and medlink. After consultation with medlink; it was determined to be a sinus issue and we would be continuing to PHX. While monitoring the end of the medlink phone patch; I instructed the FO; who was PF and working the ATC radios; to seek a lower altitude; in order to lower the cabin altitude; and possibly relieve some of the child's sinus pressure.Our position was just prior to the arrival into PHX. We were at FL390 and had plenty of fuel for an early descent; so he asked for FL280; which was the first crossing altitude on the arrival; roughly 100 miles away. ATC asked for the reason for the early descent; and the FO replied a 'passenger issue.' I did not hear all of the exchange with ATC. I did tell the FO that we were not declaring medical emergency. ATC never asked for clarification; and we never declared an emergency. The medical situation was under control; and no priority handling was needed; requested or received. The remainder of the flight was uneventful; however; upon arrival at the gate in PHX; the Chief Pilot in the Operations Center called and let us know that the FAA had called the Operations Center and were concerned that our flight was under duress. Apparently; the use of 'passenger issue' was confusing to them.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a misunderstanding between the flight crew and ATC regarding a passenger illness resulted in an aircraft security inquiry.
Date: 201910
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 0.5
Light: Daylight
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: Windshield Wiper System
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Inflight Event / Encounter Unstabilized Approach; Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Weather; Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Crew shot ILS CAT II to Runway XXL at ZZZ in heavy rain. At DA; First Officer failed to make 'minimums' call due to loss of situational awareness from heavy rain and reduced visibility. Captain knew aircraft was at DA and leveled off briefly. Runway was in sight; but landing area was obscured intermittently as windshield wipers operated. Captain picked up landing area and aircraft landed uneventfully. Combination of procedural failure and windscreen obscuration caused the aircraft to land slightly long.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported that poor visibility and lack of altitude callouts on final approach were factors in a long landing.
Date: 201405
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Aircraft: Fighter
Operator: Military
Operating under: Part 91
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Fighter
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Air Traffic Control Separated Traffic; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification; Flight Crew Returned To Clearance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure; Airspace Structure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: Two groups of fighters were returning from SSC Approach after working in Double-Shot airspace (w177).  The first was Aircraft X; a group of 2 fighters; and the second was Aircraft Y; another group of 2 fighters; though their flight plan reflected 4.  Double Shot called me upon flashing them to me to inform me that Aircraft X and Aircraft Y were joining up as one flight; and that Aircraft X was the new lead; and they were a combined flight of 4; climbing to FL200.  I was also told they were minimum fuel.  Not wanting to give a minimum fuel aircraft an undue delay; I called them Radar Contact; and took the data blocks.  When they checked on; however; they informed us that they had not been cleared as a single flight; with them only having approximately 3.5 miles of lateral separation at the same altitude on the same heading.  They also informed us they were two separate flights of 2.  We proceeded to treat them as separate flights; re-established separation; and worked them in as two separate flights from that point on.  All of this happened with relatively high volume; and quite high complexity traffic situations were developing elsewhere; and served as an unnecessary distraction for our sector integrity that could have been easily avoided if Double Shot had completed formation join up prior to handing us the aircraft.Have military controllers understand that we cannot accept aircraft that have not been given a clearance to join up as a formation or declared MARSA with less than standard separation; and to ensure that what their coordination accurately reflects the aircraft in question's status.




Synopsis: ZJX Controller describes situation where coordination between ATC facilities is not correct and finds this out from the pilot while exiting a warning area.
Date: 201710
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: GSP.TRACON, SC
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Cessna 350
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class E GSP
ATC / advisory: TRACON GSP
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
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: I was flying a heading of 185-190 to maintain the ground track direct to destination. I was asked heading by Asheville approach and they wanted me to maintain 10000 ft for terrain; I asked for a later climb; this was for weather. They complied and later I was asked to climb to 10000 ft and I complied. I was then asked to stop my climb at 9000 for traffic. I then was handed off to Greer approach. I was asked my heading I gave it as 190. I was told to climb to 10000 feet.I complied; I was cruising for 20-25 minutes; I was told to descend to 9000 ft; I asked why stated my heading and the controller became irate; I asked for the tapes to be marked. I said I will comply if given a proper clearance of opposite direction. The controller became more agitated and I did comply after the 4th or 5th time and did not agree. I got the phone number for Greer approach and the controller and I talked. He stated I am to do what he says all the time without question and his power is absolute. He quoted the AIM; and I did say those are guidance and not regulatory. The call went downhill from there. I explained I have the right and authority to question any clearance I'm the pilot in command. He disagreed.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the Approach Controller became agitated when the pilot asked why a change in altitude was necessary during cruise.