elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 202201
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: CHD.Airport, AZ
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 10
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Cessna Aircraft Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: FBO
Operating under: Part 91
Mission: Training
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class D CHD; Class E PHX
ATC / advisory: Tower CHD
Second aircraft: Small Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turboprop Eng
Reporter organization: FBO
Reporter function: Pilot Not Flying; Instructor
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Commercial
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict NMAC; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We were maneuvering in the south practice area around Maricopa town (to avoid congestion in SE practice). After various maneuvers; we descended to 3500 and started heading to Gila River Memorial (abandoned airfield) to do Eighths on Pylons. Once we got closer; we descended to 2100 to conduct the maneuver. There were no traffic conflicts during the maneuver. Upon completion; we departed the area southwest bound to climb up a bit (about 3000 MSL) and to run the approach checklist. We then turned eastbound towards CHD. We were on with Chandler tower about to enter their airspace to do some pattern work. We initially contacted CHD tower on 133.1; then the tower advised us to contact the tower on 126.1 since we are coming from the west. This is where the conflict started to arise. There was traffic coming from the west (unknown callsign; was a twin-turboprop) that appeared to be heading towards Chandler as well (heading eastbound around 3000 ft MSL). At around XA:20 local time the aircraft then started heading towards the North to an unknown airport. The aircraft looked as if it was going to pass behind us (still 3000 MSL); but this aircraft was going much faster. We appeared to be on a converging course. At XA:21 I took over the flight controls and had to abruptly maneuver the aircraft (climbing left turn (to remain outside CHD Delta)) and we promptly got a visual on the converging aircraft. They ended up passing off our left side about 400 ft below us (they stayed at 3000 MSL and proceeded NNW bound). We then continued our left turn and went to CHD for pattern work. Upon entering CHD we were very stirred up due to this stressful event and mistaken CHD TPA for 1900 (this is TPA for rotorcraft). Tower then corrected us; and we promptly climbed to the correct TPA (2300).




Synopsis: GA flight instructor reported an NMAC while approaching the airport and took evasive action to avoid the other aircraft.
Date: 201512
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: NCT.TRACON, CA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Night
Aircraft: A320
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class C OAK
ATC / advisory: TRACON NCT
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter CFTT / CFIT
Detector: Automation Aircraft Terrain Warning; Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action; Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Cleared direct to PARBB and maintain 4500. I slow to 210 KIAS; go to Flaps 1 and I maintain 4500 to PARBB. After PARBB we initially turn to follow track to ZOLUM and ATC says; direct to MITOE descend 4000. I open descend to 4000 and continue to slow to 200 because we are getting close. There's a stretch of uncomfortable silence from the controller as I feel that we need to further descend because I notice the 'profile descent donut' traveling down my PFD; and then I say to the First Officer (FO) 'give him a call; because I think he has forgotten about us; we need to descend.' At that moment ATC says 'descend to 2500.' I immediately set 2500 and open descend. Then ATC ask 'do you have the airport in sight' and we respond yes. ATC then says 'cleared visual approach Runway 30.' I set 2000 for MITOE altitude and continue open descent. Some time passes then I get 'Terrain; Terrain;' I initiate a pull up by applying back stick; auto pilot disconnects; then 'Pull up; Pull up' is heard; and then silence. So; after a moment; I level the aircraft somewhere above 3000 feet. As I'm leveling and trying to understand what has happened; ATC says be careful of high terrain. FO says yes we noticed. Because this event unsettled me for the moment I tell the FO that I want to discontinue this approach; ask ATC for vectors. He settles me by saying 'we are just above 3000' and still on course to MITOE with plenty of room to descend to 2000'. I say 'OK;' and re-engage the auto-pilot; and proceed to a Flaps 3 visual approach to Runway 30 OAK. Later; I ask the FO; 'at what altitude did we get the 'Terrain; Terrain.' He responded at about 2800.Possible reasons:I had anticipated doing a full approach and following the approach and arrival profile. It was late; and it seemed as though we were the last aircraft flying into OAK. There were a few ATC silent moments. Seeing the descent profile donut travel down and out of sight of my PFD caused me to urgently descend. I used 'open descent.'I had not fully anticipated the high terrain in the area; even though the ILS approach was briefed. Who would have thought high terrain on an approach to the California coast? I will be more vigilant. Request full approach.




Synopsis: A320 Captain reported receiving a GPWS terrain warning on a night visual approach to OAK when he lost situational and mode awareness descending in 'open descent' mode.
Date: 202004
Location: ZZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Company Policy; Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Company Policy

Narrative: Contrary to guidelines pertaining to cargo operations; no Lysol wipes or other virus killing cleaning wipes were provide to flight crew operating out of ZZZZ to help reduce spread of COVID-19.  Sani Com wipes only provided.




Synopsis: Air carrier Captain reported no sanitation equipment was available for use while at a foreign destination during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Date: 201309
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.ARTCC, US
Aircraft: A321
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Second aircraft: B737-800
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Developmental
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I was the D-Side at Sector XX/XY.  Aircraft were deviating south of a large cell of weather. Aircraft coming over to us from RXZ were just clipping our lower corner of our sector and deviating into RXZ airspace. We notified the Supervisor of the situation and he was trying to get a plan going with TMU for different routing.  I notified the R-Side of an overtake situation. We came up with a plan to descend the A321 to FL320. The sector was starting to get overloaded so the Supervisor had RXX split-out; while trying to split out the sector other coordination was need to be taken care of so I was doing so. Once the sector was split; I then moved to DXX; at this time the new R-Side saw the confliction and turn both aircraft and climbed one to FL350. The previous R-Side forgot to descend the A321 to FL320 while trying to split out a sector. It would of been better to staff an L-Side for 5-10 minutes while traffic calmed down and had an extra pair of eyes to help watch all the aircraft deviating. Trying to split the sector out was too much confusion. Also we should of had RXZ working most of the aircraft because they were deviating so far south that they were in RXZ airspace.




Synopsis: Enroute Controller described a loss of separation event claiming the ill timed spitting of the sectors was a contributing factor in the occurrence.
Date: 201508
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: Mixed
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: A300
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Cargo / Freight / Delivery
Flight phase: Initial Climb; Climb
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Transponder
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Troubleshooting; Workload
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe
When detected: In-flight
Contributing factors: MEL; Airspace Structure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We experienced several failures on takeoff. Below is a summary and sequence of what transpired. Our decision to return to ZZZ after takeoff was a decision determined along with flight control. With no altitude reporting on the transponder we would not be able to enter RVSM airspace. In addition because we lost captain; STBY and First Officer (FO) probe heat our altitude capability would be further constrained. The freezing level was 14;000.  While working through the ECAM; we coordinated with ATC for holding in VMC. Initially leveling at 230 then descending to 11;000 so that icing wouldn't be a factor. Holding was also necessary to burn fuel in order to land below max landing weight. We lowered gear and flaps to expedite fuel burn. ATC was informed of our speeds and altitude. On take off; the gear would not raise. We switched the position detection says switch and were able to raise the gear. No altitude reporting on the transponder. Pitch trim system one kicked off. Air Traffic Service (ATS) was intermittent. Probe heat failures captain; FO and STBY Total Air Temperature (TAT) and pitot. Captain flight director was inoperable. Once we checklist were complete and landing weight was achieved we returned to ZZZ for an uneventful landing.




Synopsis: The Captain of an Airbus A300 freighter reported experiencing multiple system failures after takeoff which precluded entering into icing conditions or RVSM airspace. A collaborative decision was made to abort the flight and return to the originating airport where an uneventful landing was accomplished.
Date: 201907
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ATL.Airport, GA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Approach
Airspace: Class B ATL
ATC / advisory: TRACON A80
Second aircraft: MD-11
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: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter; Inflight Event / Encounter Loss Of Aircraft Control
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Regained Aircraft Control
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Environment - Non Weather Related

Narrative: While on a visual approach to ATL; we encountered wake turbulence. The aircraft began to roll right and went to 30 degrees bank and then began to pitch down. At that point; I disconnected the autopilot and auto-throttles and performed the Nose Down Unusual Attitude maneuver. The bank of the aircraft approached 40 degrees and the Bank Angle announced once. Pitch attitude was almost five degrees down. Once the aircraft was stable; I continued the approach uneventfully. The aircraft ahead of us was Aircraft Y which was on a similar flight path. Preceding that aircraft was Aircraft Z. Aircraft Y had arrived on the downwind leg to the airport and had requested a lower altitude while on base leg. I believe it was the Aircraft Y's wake turbulence we encountered.

Callback: Reporter stated the wake encounter was probably related to a heavy MD-11 ahead of them on the approach.



Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported encountering wake turbulence on a visual approach to ATL in trail of an MD-11; resulting in a 40 degree roll and 5 degrees nose down attitude.
Date: 201706
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: Situational Awareness
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 Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: I was alerted by [another] flight attendant that door 4R was hard to arm and that the arming lever was not fully in the armed position.We let [the Purser] and Captain know that we could not fully get the lever in the armed position and were not comfortable with the lever not in position.Captain had us open 4R and try arming it again. The lever would not go fully into position.Captain came back to 4R; had a mechanic look at the door and open from the outside. The door still would not arm properly.My crew and I (excluding [the Purser]) repeatedly voiced our concern and let Captain and [the Purser] know that we did not feel safe and were not okay with the door.Captain and Lead said the lever was not an issue and that we would leave with the door as it was. Crew and I let [the Purser] know that we would not arm the door or be held responsible for the door as we were not comfortable and felt unsafe.Lead came back and attempted to arm the door. I let her know that I would not cross check as I did not believe the door was armed.Upon landing I reported the issue to a supervisor.




Synopsis: A flight attendant reported that the 4R door arming lever was not fully in the armed position. Maintenance and the Captain believed that the door was arming normally. The flight attendants were not happy.
Date: 202108
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Tower, US
Weather elements / visibility: Haze / Smoke; 6
Aircraft: RV-10
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Cessna 180 Skywagon
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Object; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: While on a descent into ZZZ1 field I inadvertently dipped into ZZZ Class D airspace. Although I am acutely aware of the area airspace and very familiar with ZZZ; a moment of distraction due to very smokey/hazy conditions continued my descent into ZZZ Class D airspace. Upon realizing my mistake I immediately climbed up and clear of their D airspace. My best estimate is 30 seconds inside their airspace.The flight involved 2 passengers whom I invited for a flight and lunch at ZZZ2. It is clear to me that the hazy and smokey conditions contributed to my inattention. However; a much more egregious event occurred upon landing in ZZZ2 and more than anything preoccupied my thoughts. Upon arriving in the pattern at ZZZ2; there were 4 aircraft operating in a left hand pattern using Runway XX. I landed following an aircraft doing touch and goes and pulled off at the intersecting runway. I came face to face with a landing C180 who decided to use the cross runway and very narrowly avoided a collision. In the process of avoiding the landing aircraft I scraped my wingtip on a runway light. In 40 years of flying I have never dented or put a scratch in any airplane and although the damage to my wingtip is minor the event clearly preoccupied my thoughts on the way home and most likely contributed to my inattention to ZZZ's Class D airspace. In most cases when I operate around or especially under the veil our Class B airspace I set my altitude hold thus allowing me to pay more attention to traffic and other tasks. The smokey/hazy condition required hand flying to avoid pockets and areas of lesser visibility. Waiting for a better day would have been a better option.




Synopsis: Pilot reported landing at a non-towered airport and having a ground conflict with an aircraft landing on an intersecting runway. Reporter indicated this event contributed to his inattention to airspace boundaries and an airspace violation later in the day.
Date: 201904
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: IMC
Aircraft: MD-83
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZZZ
ATC / advisory: Center ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pressurization System
Component problem: Failed
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Second reporter function: Pilot Flying; Captain
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Inflight Event / Encounter Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: While in cruise flight at FL280; the EOAP (Electronic Overhead Annuciator Panel) 'Pressurization flow' light illuminated. We noted the cabin climbing at a rate of 500-1000 fpm. We completed the QRH procedure with no change to the issue. We [notified ATC] and descended immediately to 10;000 ft. At no point did the cabin altitude exceed 7;000 ft. Upon reaching lower altitudes the annunciator light extinguished and the rest of the flight was normal. At the time of the mechanical issue; we were in IMC. Engine and airfoil anti-icing was on.


Second narrative: During cruise flight at FL280; approximately 200nm northeast of ZZZ with engine and airfoil anti-ice on; the pressurization flow light illuminated. Both a/c (Air Conditioning) packs indicated normal operation and the outflow valve was fully closed. We performed the QRH procedure and the cabin continued to climb at 500-1000 feet per minute. We [notified ATC] and executed a rapid descent toward 10;000 ft. As we descended through approximately 12;000 ft; the cabin pressure stabilized.  We canceled the emergency and resumed the normal arrival into ZZZ. The maximum cabin altitude was approximately 7;000 ft.


Synopsis: MD83 Flight crew reported encountering loss of pressurization in cruise.
Date: 201912
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Dusk
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: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Time Pressure; Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight; Taxi; Pre-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Captain had been flying with a First Officer on his second trip off IOE and had been struggling with a problem he had with speaking and understanding English. In addition; the First Officer exhibited stark deficiencies in flying and radio skills. The Captain received the release for [flight]; and noticed MEL 38-XX-XX-X; Lav Waste Water; and also noticed that it had been cleared on the [discrepancy log] earlier in the day. The Captain became distracted with supervising the new First Officer and failed to call Dispatch to remove the MEL from the release paper work. As a result; when the Receiving Check was called for and the Maintenance Log was called 'Checked;' the Captain made a false statement. The Captain and First Officer did not discuss the maintenance log against the release; and thus did not share the same mental model. The Captain was struggling with a new First Officer unable to speak and understand English clearly. Hence; because of the Captain's distraction and failure to mitigate the threat; the flight dispatched with an MEL on the release when it was cleared in the [discrepancy log] earlier in the day.We became complacent as an airline when we had first officers with [X]+ years of experience. This Captain became used to having First Officers who caught threats like these when they were missed and corrected the issues on a daily basis. Unfortunately; in our attempt to fill seats with new hires and upgrade inexperienced Captains; it is now imperative that Captains take their time and exercise extra vigilance with new inexperienced First Officers and focus on items that were taken for granted as completed in the past. It is also crucial that pilot recruiters be more selective in screening pilot applicants for experience; basic pilot skills; and the ability to 'speak.'




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported that being preoccupied helping an inexperienced First Officer caused the flight to depart without proper documentation.