elihoole/asrs-aviation-reports huggingface dataset:
Date: 201503
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZJX.ARTCC, FL
Light: Night
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Descent
Airspace: Class A ZJX
ATC / advisory: Center ZJX
Second aircraft: Large Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Reporter organization: Government
Reporter function: Enroute
Reporter qualification: Air Traffic Control Fully Certified
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Distraction; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Airspace Violation All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation - Altitude Excursion From Assigned Altitude; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Air Traffic Control
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance
Contributing factors: Human Factors; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I was working sector R78; when I accepted a hand off from sector 33 on Aircraft X on the LEESE arrival descending to FL250.  Shortly after I received additional handoffs on Aircraft Y and Aircraft Z on the PIGLT arrival descending to FL270 and assigned 300 knots resulting in an over 100 knot overtake on Aircraft X.  Stated in the SOP between 78 & 33 all F11 (MCO/ISM/ORL) landing aircraft will be in trail.  I then called sector 33 on the land line to request control of Aircraft Y & Aircraft Z so that I could get the spacing needed. During the exchange I told the R33 controller; 'So you know; I have to have the LEESE & PIGLT aircraft in trail'.  The R33 controller's response was 'I don't care.'  While still on the line; I noticed Aircraft X descending through his assigned altitude of FL250; and I asked what altitude Aircraft X was descending to.  The controller's response was 'I don't know'.  At this time conflict alert began with another aircraft below my airspace stratum and Aircraft X.  After hanging up the line; because the R33 controller did not express any concern for what I needed to do my part with the F11 spacing; I began the waiting process to have the aircraft come on my frequency.  I then had to call R33 again and request communication of Aircraft X after the aircraft had already been in my airspace for over 10 nautical miles.This is another example of complacency and laziness portrayed by a group of controllers at ZJX.  It is becoming a safety concern for the flying public and the controllers working with or around these controllers.  When asked about situations associated with 7110.65 and SOP/LOA; these controllers say they 'don't care' or become upset with those controllers whom request basic coordination be followed.  I would recommend desertification or re-training of individuals that continue to show ineptitude in the safe and expeditious control of air traffic.




Synopsis: A ZJX Controller reports of an airborne conflict and an aircraft altitude deviation; in which he questions another ZJX Controller about the altitude the aircraft is descending to. The other Controller states he doesn't know. The reporter is also reporting the complacency and laziness of another group of ZJX controllers.
Date: 202010
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: BWI.Airport, MD
Light: Night
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi
ATC / advisory: Ground BWI
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: ATC Issue All Types; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Incursion Taxiway
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: Air Traffic Control Provided Assistance; Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Planned landing in BWI on Runway 33L. We were assigned to park at Gate X. On the current ATIS; it had a NOTAM that said 'Taxi F closed between Taxiway P and Taxiway T.' So we had an expectation bias to exit Runway 33L at Taxiway F and that our taxi-in instructions would be to taxi to Gate X via Taxiway P; E; and T. Partly contributing to this expectation was the fact that the last time I flew a month ago; there was also construction on Taxiway T between Taxiways H and F. We also had an additive condition which I briefed at the beginning of the trip that this was my first trip back to work after not flying for 30 days.However; after landing rollout and upon exiting Runway 33L at Taxiway F; we were given instructions by Tower to taxi to Gate X via 'Taxiway P; T to T; and contact Ground.' I thought the Controller had stuttered when he said 'T to T.' So I made the right turn from F to P; thinking he meant 'P; E; T.' We contacted Ground after making the right turn on to Taxiway P. Ground then told us we had turned the wrong way and should have been going the opposite direction on P; then T2; to T. We asked what Taxiway T2 is; since Taxiway T2 is not depicted anywhere on the 10-9 page. He said it is a new taxiway. I do not recall any NOTAMs saying there is a new Taxiway T2; nor where it is located. There was nothing on the ATIS about it.We did not cause any traffic conflicts and held at our current position so that outbound aircraft could taxi out. We were then cleared to our gate without any further incident.In the future; I will remember to stop the aircraft immediately and query ATC whenever there is any doubt or ambiguity in a taxi clearance. Also recommend that the BWI airport advise on their ATIS and their NOTAMs that there is a new Taxiway T2. Furthermore; I would recommend they use a different name for the new Taxiway; as the two different phrases 1) 'T to...' and 2) 'T2' can be easily misconstrued for each other in a verbal clearance.'




Synopsis: Air Carrier Captain reported a taxiway incursion and stated Taxiway T2 which was included in their clearance is not charted.
Date: 202104
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Dusk
Aircraft: Commercial Fixed Wing
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb; Initial Climb
Airspace: Class E ZZZ
ATC / advisory: TRACON ZZZ
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Workload; Distraction; Time Pressure; Training / Qualification
Second reporter function: Captain; Pilot Not Flying
Anomaly: Deviation - Altitude Overshoot; 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: Flight Crew Became Reoriented
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Filed flight plan was Runway XL and the ZZZZZ departure. When we received our PDC; it was changed to Runway XL and the ZZZZZ1. Climb via SID. After pushback; on initial contact with Ground; they assigned a new route Runway XXL and the ZZZZZ2 departure.  Climb via SID. We stopped the aircraft and set the parking brake. We entered the new route and take off performance and while verifying the route ATC called to 'advise when ready to TAXI.'  Caused a slight distraction and missed to verify the top altitude for the SID. For both ZZZZZ and ZZZZZ1; the top altitude was FL190; whereas ZZZZZ2 had 3;000 feet. After takeoff; at 3;700 feet; pilot flying noticed that the aircraft was not leveling off and both pilots realized altitude was set at FL190. We initiated to altitude correction but at the same time ATC cleared us to FL190. Flight resumed and completed without any further events or interruptions.1) Distractions 2) Lack of Recent flying experience. This was my first trip after six months of furlough.  3) Fatigue factor. The sequence was built in such a way that all Red Eyes; are flights with 12 hours rest in between.1) A Runway/SID Change Checklist needs to be added to the current Normal checklist. This will help the pilots to ensure that all the related tasks associated with a runway change are completed.  2) Assign at least two OE flights with a check airmen for the pilots who are returning from furlough. 3) Allow more resting time between the Red Eye flights than bare minimum for legality.


Second narrative: Climbed thru SID published altitude by several hundred feet.Filed clearance was ZZZZZ departure; revised clearance ZZZZZ1.  Upon contacting ATC ground received a runway and SID change to Runway XXL and climb via the ZZZZZ2 SID.  Delayed taxing until all changes were made on the MCDU; and revised procedures were reviewed and briefed.  Missed the initial climb to 3;000 feet.  Previous 2 departures had initial climb to FL190.  Suggestion - Take longer reviewing revised ATC clearances.


Synopsis: Air carrier flight crew reported an altitude deviation caused by lack of recent flight experience; fatigue and three clearance changes before departure.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Electronic Flt Bag (EFB)
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Taxi
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: The position of new permanent mount for EFB on the side window clipboard causes interference with the nose wheel steering handle and prevents unhindered turns to the right. In right hand turns the wheel needs to be lifted; but the EFB restricts the pilot's ability to lift the left arm due to the EFB position immediately above the left forearm. I am anthropomorphically average and as such have normal length arms; legs; and torso so it is not an unusual arm length causing the issue. Seat position was verified and found to be EXACTLY where the manufacturer recommends. The EFB manual; EFB Attachment; instructs users to check for interference of the EFB with flight controls; to include the nose wheel steering handle. There is obvious interference; but unlike the pivot mount; there are no alternate locations for the EFB when using the permanent mount unless it is removed from the mount. This is a problem and needs resolution before it causes a mishap.




Synopsis: B737-700 Captain reported the fixed EFB mount interferes with his ability to use the nose wheel steering handle.
Date: 201812
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZHU.ARTCC, TX
Flight conditions: VMC
Weather elements / visibility: 80
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Flight phase: Cruise
ATC / advisory: Center ZHU
Aircraft component: Air/Ground Communication
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Single Pilot
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Clearance
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Flight Crew Requested ATC Assistance / Clarification
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: I took off from ZZZZ on a VFR flight plan to EYW. Early morning I filled up the tanks. I headed 014 to establish on [airway]; climbed to 11;500 MSL. Before being handed off to Houston Center; Merida Center advised that Houston would not allow me to continue as filed from MYDIA due to military activities; so I was told to continue to SNAKR after MYDIA and to expect continuing to Key West from there. Over MYDIA Merida handed me off to either Houston on 135.77 or Miami on 133.9. Checking in to Houston I could hear multiple radio exchanges but they didn't seem to hear me; so I kept flying to SNAKR while monitoring my fuel and I kept calling in. 40 miles to SNAKR I was alternating both Houston and Miami frequencies and I heard everyone but none of them heard me at all. Once over SNAKR I remained on Y240 on the way to YENNE and then I only kept calling Miami without success so I was concerned about the uncertainty of being diverted away from the plan (over the Gulf of Mexico) and I still monitored my fuel. Therefore some 30 miles after SNAKR I set my [transponder] to 7600; dialed 121.5 and started transmitting blind position reports; and turned right on heading 110 direct to EYW on my Garmin1000 displays. Not very long I was reached by [3 different air carriers]; they relayed me from Miami Center asking for both my continuous position reports and to contact 133.9 which I did every time as requested but they still didn't hear me so I was returning to the guard frequency after every three radio attempts. I finally got a direct acknowledge reply with Miami Center on 133.9 roughly 90 miles inbound to Key West and received instructions to continue. Then I returned my [transponder] to [assigned code] and went on my way until successfully landing on EYW. On the ground I found I had fuel for about 55 minutes; 10 minutes close to reserve. It is important to say that on my way between North-abeam Tortugas MOA and EYW I remember I heard several other airplanes had the same communications outage I had just experienced.




Synopsis: C182 pilot reported communication problems en-route to Key West.
Date: 201408
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZOB.ARTCC, OH
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: MD-82
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Flight phase: Cruise
Airspace: Class A ZOB
ATC / advisory: Center ZOB
Second aircraft: A319
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Procedure; Environment - Non Weather Related
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Approximately 40 miles west of FQM; level cruise at FL310; Mach .77 assigned by ATC. [We] noted a 25 KT tailwind at FL310 on the airway. The TCAS display was not showing known targets on the display and I would be writing it up on arrival. We had just descended from FL330 and shortly after leveling off at FL310 we began to feel the buffet from the wake of an aircraft in front of us. We did not see the traffic on the TCAS display since it was not showing known targets. We asked Cleveland Center if we were following someone and Cleveland replied that we were following lots of aircraft. We visually acquired an aircraft in front of us and guessed that we were about five miles in trail. My aircraft encountered the wake turbulence from the aircraft in front of us and made about a 25 degree roll to the right; followed by a 25 degree roll left. It was by no means a snap roll; just a pronounced gradual right wing down followed by the pronounced left wing down with no loss of altitude. I disconnected the autopilot and autothrottle during the recovery as we reported the event to ATC and asked for a descent to get out of the wake. Cleveland Center gave us a descent to FL250 and told us to maintain 250 KTS. We asked Cleveland how far we were behind the aircraft in front of us and Cleveland told us that we were seven miles in trail. We asked the type of aircraft and Cleveland told us we were following an Airbus A319.There were no unusual attitudes encountered and no deviations from clearances or procedures. I am just submitting this report because we did encounter wake turbulence from an aircraft in front of us where we did have the required separation and it surprised me that we were tossed around from a small aircraft. Suggestions: Inform the aviation community of the flight data results from A319 flight tests showing the severity of wake turbulence generated. Was my encounter today an anomaly or is there a bigger wake generated by the A319? Exactly where does the A319 fall in the spectrum of wake turbulence generated by modern aircraft? A chart that comparatively quantifies and illustrates the wake severity of the most common commercial aircraft flying today would be most useful. Does such a chart exist and if so; where can I obtain the chart?




Synopsis: MD-82 Captain reported wake vortex encounter at FL310 five miles in trail of an A319 resulting in a 25 degree roll in both directions. Reporter was surprised at the intensity of the encounter given the relatively small aircraft he was following.
Date: 202004
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: PC-12
Operator: Personal
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: VFR
Mission: Personal
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: CTAF ZZZ
Second aircraft: Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Reporter organization: Personal
Reporter function: Captain; Single Pilot; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Private
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure
Anomaly: Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Detector: Person Flight Crew; Person Observer
When detected: Other Takeoff
Result: Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: The CTAF frequency was quiet; and I announced that I was taking runway 24 for takeoff. Just before entering the runway; I looked; but did not see any aircraft approaching for either runway. During the takeoff roll; the airport manager noticed another aircraft landing on the opposite runway 6; and alerted me on the CTAF frequency. It was only then that I noticed the aircraft.Fortunately; that aircraft was on the ground and stopping; and I was ready to rotate; which I did; missing the other aircraft on the ground. In speaking to the airport manager later; he informed me that he had spoken to the other pilot; who had said that I wasn't on the frequency. After the airport manager informed him that I was on the frequency; and that it was he that wasn't on the frequency; they checked his radio and discovered that he was indeed on a different frequency by mistake.The lesson learned for me is just to reinforce that seeing approaching aircraft can be quite difficult; especially when they are on final with a cluttered background. Therefore; especially at uncontrolled airports; it is vital to use extra caution to ensure there are no aircraft approaching before entering the runway; and then to focus more than normal attention to such on the takeoff roll as well.




Synopsis: Pilot reported a critical ground conflict with opposite landing aircraft; determined later to be using the wrong CTAF frequency.
Date: 202002
Aircraft: B737-800
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Climb
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Anomaly: Inflight Event / Encounter Weather / Turbulence; Inflight Event / Encounter Wake Vortex Encounter
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Environment - Non Weather Related; Procedure
Primary problem: Ambiguous

Narrative: Close to level off at FL320; we experienced a fairly moderate jolt. ATC had previously descended another aircraft ahead of us from our right to left; and it's possible we flew through its wake. No injuries reported by cabin crew. Flight proceeded to destination safely. Maintenance notified.




Synopsis: B737-800 pilot reported encountering possible wake turbulence at FL320.
Date: 201703
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-700
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Taxi; Takeoff / Launch
ATC / advisory: Tower ZZZ
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Confusion; Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Other / Unknown
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Air Traffic Control Issued New Clearance; Flight Crew Landed in Emergency Condition; Flight Crew Returned To Departure Airport; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors; Weather
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: We were delayed one hour and fourteen minutes for weather. Taxiing to runway both EEC went to alternate mode on overhead panel.  We contacted Company Operations Center and added an MEL for both EEC in alternate mode.  On takeoff roll above 80 knots we got an amber IAS Disagree.  Then the Captain airspeed was displaying 45 knots.  As I was about to abort the takeoff; the First Officer called V1.  I stated I had no airspeed as we continued the takeoff.  At about 700 FT I transferred control to First Officer.  As we climbed through 2000 FT Captain's airspeed started to read.  At 5000' 210 knots on standby and First Officer A/S Captain A/S reading 280 knots.  At this time we told ATC we needed to return.  We turned on to downwind; accomplished QRH Checklist; called Company; call flight attendants and informed passengers we are returning.  On approach to land at 140 knots; My Airspeed was reading 210 knots then dropped to 100 knots then 90 knots.  At this time we got flap relief from 30 to 25 to 30.  We also got verbal Lower Airspeed Warnings.  Landing was normal.  Our MEL required a max power takeoff.  We had 23 passengers with a V1 of 113 knots.  From 80 knots to 113 knots gave us very little time to decide to abort or fly.




Synopsis: B737 Captain reported a dual EEC default to alternate mode during taxi out. Following the addition of an MEL; the Captain's airspeed indication was low on takeoff but not discovered in time to reject. The First Officer's airspeed indication was normal and the flight returned to the departure airport.
Date: 201908
Flight conditions: VMC
Aircraft: B757 Undifferentiated or Other Model
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Takeoff / Launch
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Captain; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Human factors: Situational Awareness
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Flight Deck / Cabin / Aircraft Event Smoke / Fire / Fumes / Odor
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: Aircraft Equipment Problem Dissipated; Flight Crew Overcame Equipment Problem; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft
Primary problem: Aircraft

Narrative: On takeoff until approximately 22;000 feet and on approach starting around 18;000 feet to landing; there was a very strong dirty sock/gym sock smell. This is consistent with the description of pyrolyzed oil entering the ECS system and is at the times that this event would normally occur. Maintenance was notified; and a description of the smell was notated on the appropriate fume form.




Synopsis: B757 Captain reported a 'dirty sock' odor during climb which dissipated and resumed on initial approach.